OCT  2    1920 


Division  B52.8D6 


-•/■ 


MEMOIR    I       OCT  2    1920 


OCT  2    1920 


J? 


THE     CONTROVERSY 


RESPECTING    THJi 


I  John  v.  7. 

INCLUDING   CRITICAL    NOTICES    OF  THE   PRINCIPAL  WRITERS 
ON   BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE   DISCUSSION. 


"A  full  and  complete  history  of  the  controversy,  vhich  should  enter,  at  large,  into  all  ita 
particulars,  woulil  be  an  invaluable  acquisition  to  literature."— Ciiarli:s  BuTLEli. 


By    CRITLCUS 


A    NEiV  EDITION,   WITH  NOTES  AND   AN  APPENDIX, 

By   EZRA   ABBOT. 


BOSTON: 
NICHOLS    AND    NOYES 

18G7. 


University    Press: 

Welch,   Bigelow,   and    Company, 

Cambridge. 


EDITORIAL    NOTE. 


The  "Memoir  of  the  Controversy  respecting  the  Three 
Heavenly  Witnesses"  which  is  here  reprinted  consists  of  a 
series  of  articles  which  originally  appeared  in  the  Congrega- 
tional Magazine  for  1829,  under  the  signature  of  "  Criticus," 
and  were  published  at  London  in  a  separate  volume  in  1830. 
The  author,  the  Rev.  William  Orme,  was  born  at  Falkirk  in 
Scotland,  in  1787,  and  became  minister  of  a  Congregational 
church  at  Perth,  in  1807.  Pie  afterwards  removed  to  Lon- 
don, and  became  minister  of  a  congregation  at  Camberwell, 
and  Foreign  Secretary  to  the  London  Missionary  Society. 
Mr.  Orme  was  the  author  of  several  esteemed  works,  as  the 
"  Memoirs  of  John  Owen,  D.  D.,"  London,  1820  ;  "  Bibliothe- 
ca  Biblica,  a  Select  List  of  Books  on  Sacred  Literature,  with 
Notices  Biographical,  Critical,  and  Bibliographical,"  Edin- 
burgh, 1824  ;  and  especially  the  "  Life  and  Times  of  Richard 
Baxter,  with  a  Critical  Examination  of  his  Writings,"  pub- 
lished at  London  in  1830,  the  year  of  his  death.  In  his  ac- 
count of  the  controversy  respecting  1  John  v.  7,  being  a 
Trinitarian,  he  will  not  be  suspected  of  undervaluing  the 
arguments  for  its  genuineness  through  theological  prejudice ; 
and   Home  justly  praises   "the   candid    spirit   and   diligent 


iv  EDITORIAL  NOTE. 

research  which  pervade  every  page  of  his  able  and  well- 
written  Memoir." 

The  republication  of  the  present  work  is  due  to  Frederic 
Huidekoper,  of  Meadville,  Pennsylvania,  at  whose  instance 
I  undertook  its  editorship.  Though  the  controversy  itself  is 
a  memorable  one,  and  its  history  will  always  possess  an  in- 
terest both  to  the  theological  student  and  the  student  of  hu- 
man nature,  it  may  seem  to  have  been  hardly  worth  while  to 
call  attention  to  the  matter  at  the  present  day.  It  may  be 
said  that  the  question  is  obsolete  ;  that  the  spuriousness  of 
the  disputed  passage  has  long  been  conceded  by  all  intelligent 
and  fair-minded  scholars.  This  is  true  ;  but  a  little  investi- 
gation will  show  that  great  ignorance  still  exists  on  the  sub- 
ject among  the  less  informed  in  the  Christian  community. 
The  passage  is  still  quoted  as  a  part  of  genuine  Scripture  ia 
volumes  published  by  our  Sunday  School  Societies,  Tract 
Societies,  and  other  religious  bodies ;  many  of  ihe  popular 
commentaries  cither  give  a  false  impression  in  regard  to  it, 
or  pass  over  it  in  silence  ;  and  it  has  been  used  as  the  text 
for  not  a  few  sermons  on  the  Trinity,  which  have  been  pub- 
lished even  in  the  present  century.  Many  Trinitarians,  who 
are  aware  that  the  passage  has  been  disputed,  have  a  vague 
notion  that  it  was  at  an  early  period  fraudulently  left  out  of 
some  manuscripts  by  the  Arians,  and  that  it  is  now  rejected 
by  Unitarians  on  account  of  their  hostility  to  the  doctrine 
involved  ;  on  the  other  hand,  some  Unitarians  imagine  it 
to  have  been  a  deliberate  forgery,  devised  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  support   to  the  doctrine   of  the  Trinity.     These 


EDITORIAL  NOTE.  V 

errors  do  not  tend  to  promote  Cliristian  charity.  Those 
who  still  quote  the  passage  through  ignorance  should  be 
enlightened ;  those  who  know  the  facts  in  the  case,  and 
conceal  them,  should  be  put  to  shame.  The  republication  of 
this  Memoir  may  perhaps  contribute  something  to  both  these 
ends.  It  will  also  show  that  the  interpolation  did  not  origi- 
nate in  fraud,  though  "  pious  fraud "  has  done  something  to 
give  it  currency. 

In  the  present  edition  of  this  work  the  extracts  made  by 
Mr.  Orme  from  various  writers  have  been  carefully  verified, 
as  far  as  possible,  by  comparison  with  the  originals,  and  many 
mistakes  have  thus  been  corrected ;  to  the  more  important 
quotations  in  foreign  languages  a  translation  has  been  sub- 
joined, for  the  benefit  of  the  unlearned  reader ;  and  a  few 
notes  have  been  added,  together  with  an  Appendix,  continu- 
ing the  history  of  the  controversy,  and  exhibiting  the  judg- 
ment of  the  best  scholars  at  the  present  day  in  regard  to  the 
subject.  The  original  text  has  been  reprinted  without  omis- 
sion or  change,  except  the  correction  of  typographical  errors  : 
the  editorial  additions  are  enclosed  in  brackets. 

E.  A. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  December  20, 1866. 


PREFACE. 


The  sentence  which  has  been  placed  on  the  title,  from 
the  Horce  BibliccB  of  the  venerable  Charles  Butler,  is  by  no 
means  intended  to  apply  to  the  following  pages.  The  au- 
thor is  too  sensible  of  their  imperfections  to  lay  claim  to 
the  merit  of  presenting  a  full  and  complete  history  of  the 
controversy  of  which  they  treat.  He  has  neither  possessed 
the  leisure,  nor  the  means,  to  enable  him  to  accomplish  so 
desirable  a  work.  If,  however,  his  efforts  should  induce  some 
more  favored  individual ;  such  a  person  as  Crito  Cantabrigi- 
ensis,  whose  acuteness  and  learning,  calmness  of  temper,  and 
powers  of  argument,  show  that  he  possesses  every  requisite 
qualification  for  such  an  undertaking,  he  will  feel  himself 
amply  rewarded,  though  the  work  of  the  pioneer  should  be 
forgotten  in  the  splendid  triumph  of  the  successful  general. 

The  greater  part  of  this  Memoir  of  the  Controversy  was 
originally  drawn  up  by  the  author  as  a  kind  of  recreation 
from  more  severe  labors,  during  hours  both  "few  and  far 
between,"  which  he  occasionally  thus  employed.  What  grat- 
ified himself,  he  imagined  might  afford  some  gratification  to 
others.     He,  therefore,  extended  his  notes,  and  printed  them 


vui  PREFACE. 

during  the  preceding  year,  in  the  successive  numbers  of  a 
monthly  publication.  He  has  understood  they  created  some 
interest  in  the  subject ;  and  that  to  a  few  their  appearance 
in  a  separate  form  would  be  acceptable. 

In  that  form  they  are  now  presented  to  the  public,  with 
some  corrections  and  very  considerable  additions.  Criticism 
he  neither  courts  nor  deprecates.  He  who  has  freely  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  of  others,  may  expect  that  others  Avill 
use  the  same  freedom  with  him.  And  if  this  is  done  with 
candor,  and  with  due  regard  to  the  interests  of  truth,  though 
it  should  differ  from  his  own,  he  will  not  complain,  or  be 
offended. 

London,  February,  1830. 


CONTENTS. 

— •— 

PACB 

Introduction 1,  2 

Erasmus      .         .  .         .         .  .         .         .         .         .2-7 

Complutensian  Edition  of  the  New  Testament   .         .         .         .  2,  3 

Jortin 7 

Colinseus,  Stephens,  Beza,  the  Elzevirs       .         .         .         .         .  7,  8 
Ancient  Versions  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .        8,  9 

Luther,  Tj-ndale,  &c 8,  9 

Father  Simon 9-13 

Bishop  Burnet 13-16 

Dr.  Thomas  Smith,  Kettner 16,17 

Howe,  Hammond     .  .         .         .         .         .         ,         .17-19 

Mill 19,  20 

The  Abbe'  Roger 20 

Eralyn  and  Martin       .         .         .     * 20-23 

Calamy 23,  24 

Bishop  Smalbroke 24-27 

Bentley 27-31 

Mace  and  Twells 31-34 

Casley 34 

Bengel 34-36 

Sloss  and  the  Eev.  T.  P.  of  C 1 36-38 

Wetstein 38-41 

Cc'sar  de  Missy         .  .  .         .         .         .         .         .        41,  42 

Sir  Isaac  Newton 42-44 


X  CONTENTS. 

Benson 45-47 

Bowyer       ..........  47 

Gibbon 47-49 

Travis 49-55 

Person    .  .  .  .  .         .         .         .         .         .55-60 

Sosipater  (Theophilus  Liudsey)      .         .         .         .         .         .    60,  61 

Robert  Stephens's  MSS 61-72 

Bishop  Marsli 63 

Travis's  Answer       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .63-66 

Marsh's  Reply 66-73 

Miehaclis  .  .  .         .         .         .         .         .         .74-78 

Semler,  Wagner,  Knittel,  Stresow  .         .         .         .         .    74,  75 

Dr.  Adam  Clarice 78-84 

Dr.  Smith  on  the  MSS.  used  for  the  Complutensian  Edition    .    82,  83 
Christian  Observer  (Dr.  Joseph  Jowett)      .  .         .         .84-90 

Dr.  Charles  Butler 90-96 

Bossuet 93,  94 

Bishop  Middleton 96-98 

Eclectic  Review  (Dr.  John  Pye  Smith)       .         .         .         .     98  -  100 

Pharez 99 

Griesbach 100,  101 

Nolan 101-111 

O.Klee 111-117 

Hales 117-121 

Bishop  Marsh  again  .......    121-124 

Ulsick's  Paheoromaica    .......         124-130 

Bishop  Burgess 130-136 

Quarterly  Review 136-143 

Burgess  again  ........    143-147 

Oxlee's  Strictures 147-149 

Ben  David  {Dr.  John  Jones) 148,150,151 


CONTEXTS.  Xi 

Bnrgcss  again 151  -  153 

Quarterly  Review  again    .......  15-3-156 

C rito  Cantabrigiensis  {Bishoip  TuTton)     .         .          .          .  157-162 

Rev.  Francis  Huyshe .162-165 

Crito  Cantabrigiensis  in  Reply         .         .         .         ■         ■  105  —  167 

Oxlce  again     .........  167-169 

Burgess  again      ........  169,  170 

Knittcl's  "New  Criticisms"  ti'anslated  by  Evanson     .          .  170-172 
Oxiee's  Summary  of  Points  settled  by  the  Controversy   .  173-178 
Clemens  Anglicanus  (Bishop  Tnrton)  on  Evanson's  Transla- 
tion of  Knittel 178 -ISO 

Eclectic  Review  on  the  Same         .         .         .         .         .  179,  180 

Home 180-182 

APPENDIX. 

BY     THE     EDITOR. 

Monthly  Anthology  (Buckminster)  and  the  Panoplist      .  183,  18-i 

Rev.  Henry  Ware,  Jr.       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .184 

British  Critic 185 

Rickli 185,  186 

Bishop  Burgess  again  .  .  .         .         .  .  .  .186 

Cardinal  Wiseman 186-191 

Cardinal  Angelo  Mai 191 

Huyshe  and  Oxlec  again  .  .  .  .         .         .         •  .191 

Dr.  William  Wright 191,  192 

Rev.  William  W.  Hunt 192 

Schol/, 192,  193 

Burgess  again .  .  ,         .         ,         .         .         .         .         .193 

Rev.  F.  A.  Farley 193 

Dr.  Joseph  TurnbuU  and  Dr.  S.  P.  TregcUes     .         .         .     194,  195 


xu  CONTENTS. 

Boston  Review     ........  195,  lOfi 

Critical   Editions  of  the    Greek    Testament  in  the  Present 

Century  ..........    197 

Translators  and  Commentators      .         .         .         .         .         .198 

Champions  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  —  Wardlaw,  Stuart, 

John  Tye  Smith 199 

Critics  —  Lee,  Home,  Porter,  Davidson     .         .         .         .199,  200 

Tregclles 200,  201 

Tisehendorf 201 

Green  ..........        202 

Scrivener  ........     202,  203 

Alford 203 

Concluding  Summary  of  the  Evidence        ....    203  -  205 
Protest  against  the  further  Imposition  of  the  Passage  on  tlie 

Unlearned  as  a  Part  of  Scripture         ....     205,  206 
The  Edinburgh  Review  and  the  New  Englander  (President 

Woolscy)  quoted  on  this  Subject         ....     206,  207 


MEMOIR 

OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING 

THE    THREE    HEAVENLY   WITNESSES, 
1  John  v.  7. 


THE  controversy  which  has  been  agitated  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Reformation,  respecting  the  testi- 
mony of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the 
First  Epistle  of  John,  whether  considered  in  a  theological, 
a  critical,  or  a  literary  point  of  view,  is  of  the  highest  im- 
portance. It  involves  one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  embraces  some  of  the  nicest  points  in  biblical 
criticism,  and  has  brought  into  the  field  men  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished talents  and  learning.  Happily  the  subject  may 
now  be  examined  dispassionately ;  as  it  has  been  admitted 
both  by  the  opposers  and  supporters  of  the  disputed  passage, 
that,  whichever  conclusion  is  come  to,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  remains  unaffected. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  historical  memoir  to  present  a  brief 
view  of  the  progress  of  this  interesting  discussion.  It  is  not 
the  intention  of  the  author  to  bring  forward  all  that  has  been 
said  on  both  sides,  for  that  would  require  volumes ;  but  to 
notice  the  principal  points  in  the  debate,  the  parties  who 
have  engaged  in  it,  the  subjects  into  wliich  the  controversy 
has  diverged,  and  the  state  in  which  the  matter  now  appears 
to  stand. 


2  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

The  learned  reader  does  not  require  to  be  informed ;  but 
for  the  sake  of  those  who  do,  and  to  prevent  mistakes,  it  is 
necessary  to  state,  that  the  whole  controversy  is,  whether  the 
words  in  Greek  and  English,  enclosed  within  brackets,  in 
the  following  passage,  are  a  genuine  part  of  the  original  text. 

""Ort  rpels  flcriv  ol  fxaprvpovvrts  [^ev  rw  ovpai/w,  6  Trarrjp,  6  Xoyor, 
Koi  TO  dyiou  irvevfjia-  Koi  ovtoi  ol  rpels  ff  fieri.  Kai  rpels  eicrti'  oi 
/laprvpovvres  ev  rrj  yjjj,  ro  ivvevpa,  Kai  ro  vOcop,  Kai  ro  aipa  •  Kai 
ol  rpels  els  to  ev  elcriv. 

"  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  [z«  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are 
one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  ivitness  in  earth'],  the 
spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood ;  and  these  three  agree  in 
one." 

The  words  in  dispute  were  omitted  by  Erasmus  in  the 
first  and  second  editions  of  the  New  Testament,  published  by 
him  in  1516  and  1519.  This  occasioned  a  dispute  with  Lee, 
an  Englishman,  who  was  afterwards  made  Archbishop  of 
York  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  also  with  Stunica,  one  of  the 
divines  employed  on  the  Complutensian  Polyglot ;  in  the 
course  of  which  Erasmus  promised,  that  if  the  passage  were 
found  in  a  single  Greek  manuscript,  he  would  insert  it  in  his 
next  edition.  An  account  of  the  controversy  with  Lee  and 
Stunica  will  be  found  in  Burigni's  Life  of  Erasmus,  and  also 
in  Jortin's.  Stunica's  attack  and  the  defence  of  Erasmus 
will  be  found  in  the  ninth  volume  of  the  Critici  Sacri.  The 
dispute  with  these  individuals,  it  should  be  observed,  was  not 
restricted  to  the  passage  in  John.  Both  of  them  attacked 
the  editorial  labors  and  learning  of  Erasmus  generally, 
which  it  was  their  great  object  to  vilify.  That  learned  per- 
son was  not  backward  to  reply  in  his  own  defence. 

The  Comijlutensian  edition  of  the  New  Testament  was 
printed  in   1514,  though   not  published  till   1522.     In  this 


ERASMUS.  3 

edition  the  passage  is  inserted,  whether  from  some  Greek 
MS.,  or  translated  from  the  Latin  into  Greek,  has  been  mat- 
ter of  dispute.  At  the  same  time,  Erasmus  was  informed  of 
a  MS.  in  England,  which  contained  the  passage.  This  MS. 
has  at  length  been  found  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  and  is 
now  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  the  Codex  Montforti- 
anus.  Michaelis  asserts  that  this  MS.  was  written  after  the 
year  1500,  and  is  therefore  of  no  critical  authority.  Mill 
thinks  it  is  very  modern ;  Wetsteiu  ascribes  it  to  the  six- 
teenth century ;  Griesbach  dates  it  in  the  fifteenth  or  six- 
teenth; and  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  who  examined  it  very  partic- 
ularly, thinks  it  cannot  be  older  than  the  thirteenth  century. 
In  consequence  of  these  things,  Erasmus  inserted  in  his  next, 
and  two  following  editions,  published  in  1522,  1527,  and 
1535,  the  words  under  dispute.  While,  from  regard  to  his 
promise,  he  inserted  the  passage,  he  took  care  to  record  his 
reasons  for  doing  so,  and  his  opinion  of  the  MS.,  in  the  fol 
lowing  words :  —  "^x  hoc  igitur  Codice  Britannico  reposui- 
7nus,  quod  in  7iostris  dicebalur  deesse :  ne  cut  sit  ansa  ca- 
lumniandi.  Tametsi  suspicor  codicem  ilium  ad  nostros  esse 
correclum." 

While  this  sentence  shows  that  the  suspicions  of  Erasmus 
respecting  the  authority  of  this  passage  were  never  removed, 
it  may  be  interesting  to  the  English  reader  to  know  more 
particularly  how  exceedingly  careful  he  was  in  forming  his 
text  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that,  on  this  very  passage, 
he  bestowed  no  ordinary  pains.  From  Jortin's  Life  of  that 
distinguished  individual,  I  extract  a  passage,  in  which  the 
views  of  Erasmus  on  the  disputed  passage  are  clearly  and 
fully  stated.  In  his  note  on  the  verse  nnder  discussion,  ho 
observes : — 

1.  "That  in  the  Greek,  only  these  words  are  found :  ^br 
there  are  three  that  bear  record,  the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  blood:  and  these  three  agree  in  one. 


Ul 


4  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

2.  "That  this  passage  is  so  cited  by  Cyril  in  the  14th 
book  of  his  Thesaurus,  and  that  an  orthodox  father,  as  he 
was,  Avould  infallibly  have  cited  the  whole  passage  against 
the  Arians,  if  he  had  found  it  in  any  copies  in  his  time. 

3.  "  That  the  same  may  be  said  of  Augustin,  who  also 
cites  it  thus  against  Maximinus  the  Arian,  although  he  omits 
nothing  to  establish  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  and  although  he  pretends  that  the  spirit,  the  water,  and 
the  blood,  signify  tlie  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

4.  "  That  Beda  cites  the  passage  in  the  same  manner  as 
Augustin. 

5.  "  That  the  controverted  words  are  not  in  a  manuscript 
of  the  JMinor  Friers  of  Antwerp,  which  he  had  examined. 

6.  "  That  indeed  the  authority  of  Jerom  is  urged  on  this 
occasion ;  but  that  this  father  seems  to  complain,  in  a  preface 
which  is  prefixed  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  not  of  the  Greek 
manuscripts,  but  of  those  who  ti'anslated  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment into  Latin ;  and  that  at  present  the  words,  which,  as  he 
complains,  were  omitted,  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Greek 
manusci'ipts,  but  only  in  some  of  the  Latin  ones. 

"  '  But,'  says  Erasmus,  '  whence  could  Jerom  discover  this 
eiTor  of  the  translators  ?  It  must  have  been  by  the  help  of 
the  Greek  copies.  But  these  Greek  copies  either  were  or 
were  not  confoiinable  to  our  version.  If  they  varied,  as  well 
as  the  Latin  version?,  by  what  indications  can  he  show  which 
is  the  best  reading,  and  how  the  apostle  wrote?  especially 
since  the  reading  which  he  censures  was  publicly  used  in  the 
Church.  If  this  were  not  the  case,  I  know  not  what  can  be 
made  of  the  following  words :  Sed  tic,  virgo  Christi,  Eusto- 
chium,  clum  a  7ne  impensius  Scripturce  veritatem  inquiris, 
vieam  quodammodo  senectutem  invidorum  dentibus  corroden- 
dam  exponis,  qui  me  falsarium  corruptoremque  sacrarum 
pronunciant  Scripturarum.     For  who  would  have  called  him 


ERASMUS.  5 

a  forger  and  a  falsifier,  unless  he  changed  the  common  read- 
ing of  the  place  ?  If  Cyril  amongst  the  Greeks  did  read 
what  we  now  read  in  our  Greek  manuscripts,  if  Augustin 
and  Beda  did  read  so,  or  if  they  found  both  the  one  and  the 
other  reading,  I  see  not  what  reason  Jerom  could  give  to 
prove  that  his  way  of  reading  was  the  true  one.  Some  will 
say,  This  text  furnisheth  us  with  a  strong  argument  against 
the  Arians.  But  first,  since  it  is  certain  that  the  manner  of 
reading  this  passage  hath  varied  amongst  the  Greeks  and 
Latins,  we  cannot  object  it  to  them,  because  they  will  have 
the  same  right  to  claim  that  reading  which  favors  them. 
But  let  it  be  supposed  that  the  passage  is  incontestable,  since 
what  is  said  of  the  testimony  of  the  water,  the  blood,  and  the 
spirit,  that  they  are  one  {unum  sunt,  or  rather  that  they 
amount  to  one,  eh  to  ev  elai),  relates  not  to  an  unity  of  na- 
ture, but  to  an  uniformity  of  testimony,  could  the  Arians, 
think  we,  be  so  stupid  as  not  to  interpret  in  the  same  manner 
what  is  said  of  the  Father,  the  AVord,  and  the  Spirit?  espe- 
cially since  the  orthodox  explain  in  the  same  way  a  passage 
in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John ;  since  Augustin  rejects  not  this 
interpretation,  when  lie  disputes  with  Maximinus  the  Arian ; 
and  since  the  interlineary  gloss  explains  it  thus :  Unum  sunt, 
id  est,  de  eadem  re  testantur.  This  is  not  the  way  to  establish 
the  faith,  but  to  make  it  suspected,  by  trusting  to  such  weak 
surmises.  Perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  use  our  pious 
endeavors  to  become  one  with  God  and  with  Christ,  than 
to  discuss,  with  an  over-curious  zeal,  how  the  Son  dilTereth 
from  tlie  Father,  and  how  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  one  and 
the  other.  In  truth,  I  see  not  how  we  can  prove  what  the 
Arians  denied,  except  by  satisfactory  arguments.  In  a  word, 
this  whole  passage,  being  obscui-e,  can  be  of  small  service  for 
the  confutation  of  heretics,  «S:c. 

" '  But  not  to  dissemble  anytliing,  one  single  Greek  man- 


6  CONTEOVEESY  EESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

uscript  hath  been  discovered  in  England,  wherein  what  is 
wanting  in  other  mannsrrijits  is  found  thus :  "On  rpfh  eltriv  oi 
fiaprvpovvTfs  (V  rw  ovpavm,  Uarrjp,  Aoyos,  kol  Uvevpxi.,  Kai  ovroi  ol 
rpels  ev  dcrii'.  Kai  rpels  elaiv  paprvpovures  iv  ttj  yfj,  irvevpa, 
vdoip,    KOL    aipa    els  *    rfjv    paprvplav    tuiv    dvdpunrcov.,    &C.,   J'Bt,   I 

know  not  by  what  accident,  what  is  in  our  Greek  copies  is 
not  repeated  here,  koX  ol  rpels  els  to  ev  ela-iv,  and  these  three 
agree  in  one.  From  this  English  manuscript  we  have  sup- 
plied what  is  said  to  be  deficient  in  our  copies,  that  no  one 
might  take  occasion  to  calumniate  us ;  although  I  suspect 
that  this  manuscript  hath  been  corrected  and  accommodated 
to  some  of  our  [Latin]  copies.  I  have  consulted  two  Latin 
manuscripts  of  very  great  antiquity  in  the  library  of  St.  Do- 
natian  at  Bruges.  Neither  of  them  have  the  testimony  of 
the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit ;  and  in  one  of  them 
were  not  the  w^ords  in  earth :  there  was  only  There  are  three 
who  bear  record,  the  Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood.  In 
two  manuscripts  of  Constance,  after  the  testimony  of  the 
"Water,  the  Blood,  and  the  Spirit,  were  added  these  words ; 
as  in  heaven  there  are  three,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Spirit,  and  three  are  one.  There  was  neither  testimonium 
dant,  nor  the  pronoun  hi.  In  a  manuscript  which  I  had  from 
the  public  library  of  the  University  of  Basel,  there  was  not 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood ;  Pau- 
lus  Bombasius,  at  my  request,  copied  out  this  passage  from  a 
very  old  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  Library,  which  had  not 
the  testimony  of  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit;  and 
witli  this  manuscript  agrees  the  edition  of  Aldus.' 

"Erasmus  proceeds  to  show  that  there  are  Spanish  editions, 
wherein  variations  are  found,  and  that  in  reality  nothing  can 
be  here  meant  besides  an  unity  of  consent.  I  shall  add  no 
more :  this  sufficeth  to  show  how  careful  he  was  to  settle  the 

*  In  this  MS.  it  is  ft. 


JORTIN.  7 

true  reading  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  without  pay- 
ing any  regard  to  tlieological  prejudices,  which  make  men 
seek  in  tlie  Holy  Scriptures  only  what  seems  proper  in  their 
opinion  to  establish  the  sentiments  which  they  have  adopted. 
If  Erasmus  lived  in  these  days,  he  would  see  with  pleasure 
that  Jerom's  pretended  Preface  to  the  Catholic  Epistles, 
upon  which  so  much  stress  was  once  laid,  is  the  work  of  an 
impostor,  as  Father  Martianai,  although  no  extraordinary 
critic,  hath  fully  proved  in  his  edition  of  Jerom's  version. 
He  would  see  that  on  this  particular  occasion  there  was  no 
reason  to  blame  Jerom,  though  the  judgment  which  he  passed 
upon  the  fictitious  Jerom  be  reasonable  and  just.  At  present 
this  passage,  and  all  that  relates  to  it,  hath  been  so  fully  dis- 
cussed, that  none  except  stubborn  and  perverse  people  pre- 
tend to  deny  that  the  heavenly  witnesses  are  an  interpolation. 
But  there  is  the  more  reason  to  admire  the  sagacity  and  the 
judiciousness  of  Erasmus,  who  discovered  the  false  read- 
ing." * 

While  this  quotation  shows  the  opinion  of  Erasmus,  and 
the  grounds  on  which  that  opinion  was  formed,  it  also  con- 
veys the  opinion  of  his  biographer,  Dr.  Jortin,  on  the  merits 
of  the  passage.  Jortin  was  a  profound  scholar,  a  critic  of 
great  acutcness,  whose  acquaintance  with  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory was  more  extensive  and  accurate  than  that  of  most  men 
of  his  time.  On  biblical  criticism  he  was  also  well  qualified 
to  pronounce  an  opinion,  and  that  opinion,  whatever  it  was, 
he  was  accustomed  to  express,  as  in  the  present  instance,  with 
great  decision  and  explicitness. 

Colina:;u9,  the  father-in-law  of  Robert  Stephens,  in  his 
edition  of  1534,  printed  at  Paris,  omitted  the  verse  from 
want  of  MS.  authority.     It  is  also  omitted  in  editions  pub- 

•  Jortin's  Life  of  Erasmus,  Vol.  II.  pp.  230-233. 


8  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

lislied  at  Hagenau  in  1521,  and  at  Strasburg  in  1524.  R. 
Stephen;:,  in  his  edition  of  1550,  inserted  the  passage;  but 
marked  the  words  ev  rw  ovpav<o  as  wanting  in  seven  MSS. 
Beza,  suspecting  no  mistake,  and  supposing  that  these  MSS. 
contained  the  remaining  Avords,  inserted  the  whole  passage 
in  his  editions.  Tlie  Elzevir  editors,  following  these  author- 
ities, admitted  the  passage  into  their  editions,  and  thus  it 
finally  became  a  part  of  the  received  text. 

In  all  the  ancient  versions  it  is  wanting.  In  the  Old  Sy- 
riac,  or  Peshito,  made  in  the  second  or  third  century ;  in  the 
Philoxenian  Syriac,  made  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury ;  in  the  Coptic  and  Sahidic  Versions,  made  between  the 
fourth  and  sixth  centuries ;  *  iu  the  Ethiopic  Version,  which 
boasts  a  very  high  antiquity ;  in  the  Arabic  MSS.  and  most 
of  the  printed  editions  ;  and  though  inserted  in  the  printed 
editions  of  the  Armenian,  it  does  not  exist  in  the  best  MSS. 
of  that  translation.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  the 
Slavonian,  the  oldest  editions  of  which  do  not  contain  it.  It 
is  to  be  found  in  the  printed  text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  but 
some  of  the  oldest  Latin  MSS.  want  it,  and  in  others  it  is 
interlined,  or  added .  in  the  margin.  No  satisfactory  proof 
has  been  afforded  that  it  is  quoted  by  any  of  the  Greek 
fathers ;  and  even  the  adduced  evidence  of  the  Latin  writers 
is  defective  or  unsatisfactory. 

From  all  the  editions  of  the  German  translation  of  the 
New  Testament  by  Luther,  which  were  published  by  him- 
self, it  was  excluded ;  a  conclusive  proof  that  the  Reformer 

*  [These  two  versions,  otherwise  called  the  Memphitic  and  the  Thebaic, 
are  now  generally  supposed  by  scholars  to  have  been  made  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  or  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  Jliinter  and  Woide 
are  disposed  to  assign  the  Sahidic  even  to  the  second  century;  it  is  proba- 
bly, at  any  rate,  the  earlier  *of  the  two.  The  ^Ethiopic  version  is  usually 
ascribed  to  the  fourth  century.  —  Ed.] 


SIMON.  9 

% 

wanted  faith  in  its  authority.  After  his  death,  it  was  in 
serted  iniiis  translation  by  some  of  the  editors,  and  rejected 
by  others,  till  at  last  its  insertion  became  general.  The  mod- 
ern European  versions  for  the  most  part  contain  the  passage. 
In  the  greater  number  of  the  editions  of  the  English  trans- 
lation, from  Tindal  to  the  Bishops'  Bible  in  loGS,  the  pas- 
sage is  printed  either  in  a  difTercnt  character  from  the  text, 
or  enclosed  in  brackets,  to  intimate  that  it  was  found  in  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  but  not  in  the  Greek  text.  Calvin,  Leo  de 
Juda,  Castalio,  all  speak  of  it  and  treat  it  as  doubtful. 

In  Father  Simon's  Critical  History  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  was  translated  very  incorrectly  into  English  in 
1689,  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  attacked  at  some 
length.*  Simon  examined  very  diligently  the  King's  Library 
at  Paris,  and  likewise  the  Colbertine,  containing  many  valu- 
able Greek  MSS. ;  but  none  of  them  contained  the  disputed 
passage.  He  found  it  also  wanting  in  some  of  the  oldest 
MSS.  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  which  he  examined.  His  opin- 
ion is  decidedly  unfavorable  to  its  genuineness ;  as  even  in 
regard  to  the  Latin  i\ISS.  which  contain  it,  he  expresses  his 
belief,  that  it  was  originally  written  on  the  margin,  as  a  mar- 
ginal note,  and  afterwards  introduced  into  the  text  by  some 
of  the  transcribers. 

The  following  extract  contains  the  result  of  Simon's  in- 
vestigation, and  also  his  opinion  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
spurious  words  were  introduced  into  the  text,  both  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  MSS.  which  contain  it. 

"  After  the  mo-t  diligent  search  in  the  King's  Library,  and 
that  of  Colbert,  in  which  there  are  a  great  many  good  man- 
usciipt  volumes,  I  found  no  copy  that  had  that  passage  in 
it,  though  I  read  seven  of  them  in  the  Royal  Library,  six 

•  Part  I.  Chap.  XVIII. ;  Part  II.  Chap.  IX. 
1* 


10  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

whereof  are  marked  1885.  2247.  2248.  2870.  2871.  2872. 
Some  of  the  manuscripts  have  notes ;  but  no  schoUast  or 
annotator  makes  mention  of  that  passage ;  neither  have  I 
found  it  in  five  maniiscrijit  copies  beh:>nging  to  Colbert's  Li- 
brary, which  are  marked  871.  6123.  4785.  6584.  2844.  Yet 
some  of  tliese  manuscrijDts  are  only  paper,  and  much  later 
than  the  rest.  Thei'e  is  also  one  in  16mo,  well  written,  and 
I  believe  since  the  era  of  printing :  yet  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion is  not  found  therein,  any  more  than  in  the  rest  of  the 
ancient  copies. 

"  I  could  produce  yet  other  Greek  manuscript  copies  which 
I  have  seen,  whose  various  readings  I  observed ;  but  that 
which  most  deserves  our  notice  is,  that  in  the  margin  of  some 
of  the  King's  and  Colbert's  copies  there  are  small  notes  set 
over  against  the  said  passage,  which  in  all  likelihood  have 
slipped  afterwards  into  the  body  of  the  text.  Take  an  exam- 
ple from  the  King's  copy,  marked  2247.;  over  against  these 
words.  On  Tpels  elaiv  oi  fiapTVpovvTes  if  rfj  yrj,  to  nvevna  /cat 
TO  i'Scop  Koi  TO  aljia,  there  is  this  remark,  TovTean  to  Trvevfia  to 
ayiov,  Koi  6  TraTT]p,  Kol  aiiTos  eavTov,  By  which  we  may  per- 
ceive, that  the  author  of  the  said  remark  understood  the 
Father,  ike  Word,  and  the  -Holy  Ghost  to  be  signified  by  the 
three  witnesses  mentioned  by  St.  John,  the  Spii^it,  the  Water, 
and  the  Blood:  and  what  was  formerly  written  by  way  of 
note,  passed  afterwards  into  the  text,  as  it  often  falls  out. 
In  the  same  copy  over  against  these  other  words,  koi  ol  Tpus 
fls  TO  ev  elai,  this  note  IS  added,  TovTeaTi  fiia  Bforrjs  els  Beos, 
that  is,  one  Deity,  one  God.  That  manuscript  is  about  500 
years  old,  and  there  are  but  very  few  places  thereui  that  have 
notes.  There  is  the  like  remark  in  one  of  the  manuscripts 
belonging  to  M.  Colbert's  Library,  number  871.  For  beside 
tliese  words  that  are  set  in  the  margin,  tls  Beos  p.ia  deoTTjs, 
one  God,  one  Deity ;  the  scholiast  has  also  added  these,  fiap- 


SIMON.  11 

Tvpia  Tov  deov  rov  Tcarpoi  Koi  tov  Ay'iov  Trffviiaros,  (he  testimony 
of  God  the  Father,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  This,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  original  of  the  passage  in 
question." 

Spealiing  afterwards  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  the  time  of 
Jerome,  and  of  Jerome's  controverted  preface,  and  endeavor- 
ing to  show  that  the  passage  did  not  exist  in  that  version 
then,  nor  was  introduced  by  Jerome,  he  says :  — 

"  And  that  which  makes  it  further  manifest,  that  St.  Je- 
rome was  not  the  true  author  either  of  the  preface  or  addi- 
tion, is,  that  that  addition  is  placed  in  the  margin  of  most  of 
the  ancient  copies,  in  the  body  of  which  it  is  not  extant.  It 
was  no  less  than  surprising,  that  the  pretended  St.  Jerome 
should  in  his  preface  commend  his  new  edition  of  the  Ca- 
nonical Epistles,  upon  the  account  of  the  change  he  had 
made,  especially  in  the  First  of  St.  John,  whilst  there  was 
nothing  of  such  change  or  amendment  to  be  seen  therein. 
Upon  which  account  the  transcribers,  or  they  to  whom  the 
copies  did  belong,  thought  fit  to  regulate  the  text  according 
to  the  preface,  by  supplying,  in  the  margin,  the  verse  concern- 
ing the  witness  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
which,  before  that  time,  was  extant  in  some  ecclesiastical  au- 
thors. But  since  it  was  a  matter  of  difficulty  for  those  who 
])laced  that  addition  in  the  margin  of  their  copies,  to  observe 
a  general  and  perfect  uniformity  of  words,  it  so  fell  out,  that 
the  expressions  in  the  various  copies  did  likewise  vary.  This 
diversity  evidently  proves  that  St.  Jerome  could  not  be  the 
author  of  the  addition  in  controversy,  but  that  it  was  done  by 
those  who  had  a  mind  to  adjust  the  text  in  St.  John  to  the 
preface.  I  shall  here  give  some  examples  illustrative  of  the 
manner  how  it  was  added  to  most  of  the  old  Latin  copies  of 
St.  Jerome's  Bible. 

"  In  that  copy  of  the  Royal  Library,  that  is  marked  3584., 


12  CONTROVERSY   EKSPKCTING    1   JOHN  V.   7. 

in  the  margin  over  against  these  words,  Tres  sunt  qui  testi- 
monium dant,  i.  e.  there  are  three  which  hear  witness,  there 
are  these  other  words  added,  In  ca:lo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiri- 
tus:  et  trcs  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra,  et  hi  tres 
unnm  sunt,  i.  e.  i7i  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Spirit:  and  there  are  three  which  hear  witness  on  earth,  and 
these  three  are  one.  The  Avriting  of  the  addition  appears  to 
be  no  less  ancient  than  that  of  the  text.  The  like  addition 
is  to  be  seen  in  a  copy  tliat  is  in  Colbert's  Library,  that  is 
marked  158.,  where  in  tlie  margin,  over  against  these  words, 
Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant,  these  are  added,  In  ccelo, 
Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus,  et  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant 
in  terra,  sanguis,  aqua,  et  caro.  And  to  make  the  text  and 
addition  agree  the  better,  there  are  some  of  the  words  of  the 
text  amended  or  put  out.  There  is  nothing  of  this  addition 
to  be  read  in  the  thretf  ancient  copies  of  the  library  belong- 
ing to  the  Benedictines  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germans,  only 
it  is  placed  in  the  margin  of  one  of  these  copies,  and  the  ad- 
dition is  as  old  therein  as  the  text  itself. 

"  It  is  true,  that  it  is  extant  in  a  copy  written  eight  hun- 
dred years  ago,  in  the  time  of  Lotharius  II.  But  it  is 
strangely  disfigured  in  that  place  ;  in  that  copy  the  reading 
was  formerly  thus,  Sunt  tres  qui  testimonium  dant,  (the  words 
in  terra  being  interlined,)  spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis  ;  et  tres 
unum  S7int :  et  trcs  sunt  qui  de  ccelo  testijicantur,  pater,  ver- 
bum, et  spiritus,  et  tres  unum  sunt.  But  some  time  afterwards, 
the  words  de  ccelo  testijicantur,  i.  e.  bear  witness  of  [or  from^ 
heaven,  were  defaced,  to  make  room  for  these,  testimonium 
dicunt  in  ccelo,  i.  e.  bear  witness  in  heaven. 

"All  which  different  alterations  are  evident  proofs  that  there 
was  nothing  of  that  addition  in  the  first  copies  which  were 
published  of  St.  Jerome's  Bible ;  for  which  reason  it  is  not 
to  be  found  in  a  certain  version  of  the  French  Church,  which 


BURNET.  13 

is  at  least  a  thousand  years  old,  and  which  was  published  by 
Father  Mabillon,  a  Benedictine  monk,  and  the  first  who  in 
etTect  seems  to  have  inserted  that  passage  in  his  works,  is 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Vite,  who  lived  a  hundred  years  after  St. 
Jerome," 

Simon,  though  a  Catholic,  and  either  a  sceptic  or  a  blind 
devotee,  was  a  man  of  eminent  talents  and  scholarship.  In 
all  the  departments  of  biblical  literature  he  was  profoundly 
versed;  while  he  was  no  less  distinguished  for  his  patient  and 
laborious  researches,  than  for  his  learning  and  acuteness. 
There  is  at  the  same  time  generally  so  much  Jesuitism  about 
his  mode  of  reasoning,  that  it  is  frequently  difficult  to  ascer- 
tain his  real  opinions,  or  the  object  of  his  aim  ;  so  that  while 
often  led  to  admire  the  scholar,  we  can  rarely  respect  the 
man.  His  works  in  one  way  tend  to  establish  the  authority 
of  Rome,  and  in  another  to  sap  the  foundations  of  Revela- 
tion. On  the  subject  of  the  disputed  passage,  however, 
he  writes  clearly  and  Ibrcibly,  and,  I  believe,  simply  as  a 
critic. 

•f  Our  learned  countryman,  Bishop  Burnet,  paid  some  atten- 
tion to  this  subject,  and  in  the  course  of  his  travels  on  the 
Continent  examined  a  number  of  MSS.,  both  Greek  and 
Latin,  of  which  he  published  the  result.  The  Bishop,  though 
a  respectable  scliolar  and  theologian,  was  not  profound  as  a 
critic.  He  could  not  account  for  several  things  in  this  con- 
troversy which  are  now  easily  explained.  He  seems  to  have 
been  a  believer  in  the  authenticity  of  the  passage  himself, 
and  was,  therefore,  very  anxious  to  find  it  in  some  MS.  of 
value.  His  travels  are  now,  I  believe,  not  very  commonly 
to  be  met  with,  and  as  the  passage  is  curious  in  which  he 
speaks  of  this  text,  I  will  give  it  entire. 

"  I  have  taken  some  pains  in  my  travels  to  examine  all  the 


14  CONTROVERSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.   7. 

ancient  manuscripts  of  tlie  New  Testament,  concerning  that 
doubted  passage  of  St.  John's  Epistle,  There  are  three  that 
hear  witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Spirit ; 
and  these  three  are  one.  Bullinger  doubted  much  of  it,  be- 
cause he  found  it  not  in  an  ancient  Latin  manuscript  at 
Zurich,  which  seems  to  be  about  800  years  old :  for  it  is 
written  in  that  hand  that  began  to  be  used  in  Charles  the 
Great's  time.  I  turned  the  manuscript,  and  found  the  pas- 
sage was  not  there :  but  this  was  certainly  the  error  or  omis- 
sion of  the  copier:  for  before  the  General  Epistles  in  that 
manuscript,  the  preface  of  St.  Jerome  is  to  be  found,  in 
Avhich  he  says,  that  he  was  the  more  exact  in  that  transla- 
tion, that  so  he  might  discover  the  fraud  of  the  Arians,  who 
had  struck  out  that  passage  concerning  the  Trinity.  This 
preface  is  printed  in  Lyra's  Bible;  but  how  it  came  to  be  left 
out  by  Erasmus  in  his  edition  of  that  father's  works,  is  that 
of  which  I  can  give  no  account:  for  as  on  the  one  hand,  Eras- 
mus's sincerity  ought  not  to  be  too  rashly  censured;  so  on  the 
other  hand,  that  preface  being  in  all  the  manuscripts  ancient 
or  modern  of  those  Bibles  that  have  the  other  prefaces  in 
them,  that  I  ever  yet  saw,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  what  made 
Erasmus  not  to  publish  it ;  and  it  is  in  the  manuscript  Bibles 
at  Basil,  where  he  printed  his  edition  of  St.  Jerome's  works. 
In  the  old  manuscript  Bible  of  Geneva,  that  seems  to  be 
above  700  years  old,  both  the  preface  and  the  passage  are 
extant,  but  with  this  difference  from  the  common  editions, 
that  the  common  editions  set  the  verse  concerning  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Spi7-it,  before  that  of  the  Water,  the  Blood, 
and  the  Spirit ;  which  comes  after  it  in  this  copy :  and  that 
I  may  in  this  place  end  all  the  readings  I  found  of  this 
passage  in  my  travels,  there  is  a  manuscript  in  St.  Mark's 
library,  in  Venice,  in  three  languages,  Greek,  Latin,  and 
Arabic,  that  seems  not  above  400  yeai'S  old,  in  which  this 


BURNET.  lb 

passage  is  not  in  the  Greek,  but  it  is  in  the  Latin  set  after 
the  other  three,  with  a  stcut  to  join  it  to  what  goes  before. 
And  in  a  manuscript  Latin  Bible  in  the  library  of  St.  Lau- 
rence at  Florence,  both  St.  Jerome's  preface  and  this  passage 
are  extant;  but  this  passage  comes  after  the  other,  and  is 
pinned  to  it  with  a  sicut,  as  is  that  of  Venice ;  yet  stcut  is 
not  in  the  Geneva  manu.scri[»t.  There  are  two  Greek  manu- 
scripts of  the  Epistles  at  Basil,  that  seem  to  be  about  500 
years  old,  in  neither  of  which  this  passage  is  to  be  found : 
they  have  also  an  ancient  Latin  Bible,  which  is  about  800 
years  old,  in  which,  though  St.  Jerome's  prologue  is  inserted, 
yet  this  passage  is  wanting.  At  Sti-asburg,  I  saw  four  very 
ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  in  Latin :  three 
of  these  seemed  to  be  about  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great, 
but  the  fourth  seemed  to  be  much  ancienter,  and  may  belong 
to  the  seventh  century :  in  it  neither  the  prologue  nor  the 
place  is  extant ;  but  it  is  added  at  the  foot  of  the  page  with 
another  hand.  In  two  of  the  other,  the  prologue  is  extant, 
but  the  place  is  not;  only  in  one  of  them  it  is  added  on 
the  margin.  In  the  fourth,  as  the  prologue  is  extant,  so 
is  the  place  likewise,  but  it  comes  after  the  verse  of  the 
other  three,  and  is  joined  to  it  thus,  Sicut  tres  su7it  in  ccelo. 
'*  It  seemed  strange  to  me,  and  it  is  almost  incredible,  that 
in  the  Vatican  Library  there  are  no  ancient  Latin  Bibles, 
where  above  all  other  places  they  ought  to  be  looked  for ; 
but  I  saw  none  above  400  years  old.  There  is,  indeed,  the 
famous  Greek  manuscript  of  great  value,  which  the  Chano- 
ine  Shelstrat,  that  was  library-keeper,  asserted  to  be  1,400 
years  old,  and  proved  it  by  the  great  similitude  of  the  char- 
acters with  those  that  are  upon  St.  Ilippolite's  statue,  which 
is  so  evident,  that  if  his  statue  was  made  about  his  time,  the 
antiquity  of  this  manuscript  is  not  to  be  disputed.  If  the 
characters  are  not  so  fair,  and  have  not  all  the  marks  of  an- 


16  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

tiquity  that  appear  in  the  King's  manuscript  at  St.  James's, 
yet  this  has  been  much  bettei*  preserved,  and  is  much  more 
entire.  The  passage  that  has  led  me  into  this  digression,  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Vatican  manuscript,  no  more  than  it 
is  in  the  King's  manuscript."  * 

Dr.  Burnet  seems  not  to  have  been  aware  of  the  reason 
why  Ez-asmus  did  not  publish,  in  his  edition  of  Jerome's 
works,  the  preface  before  the  General  Epistles,  or  of  the  fact 
which  has  been  clearly  ascertained,  that  Jerome  never  wrote 
any  such  preface ;  but  that  it  was  the  production  of  a  future 
age.  Nor  is  he  correct  in  saying,  that  all  the  ancient  Latin 
MSS.  contain  this  preface.  Father  Simon  clearly  proves 
the  contrary  Burnet's  account  of  the  readings  in  the  Latin 
MSS.  which  he  examined,  and  its  omission  in  the  Greek 
MSS.,  corroborates  the  testimony  of  all  others  who  have  ex- 
amined the  subject. 

4  Our  learned  countryman.  Dr.  Thomas  Smith,  in  his  Latin 
"Miscellanea,"  the  first  edition  of  which  appeiired  in  1G36, 
has  a  dissertation  in  support  of  the  received  reading  of  this 
text,  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  Simon ;  and  as  Simon  re- 
marked on  him,  he  defended  himself  in  a  second  dissertation, 
inserted  in  the  next  edition  in  1690.  Smith  was  a  very  con- 
siderable scholar,  who  had  travelled  much,  and  was  well  ac- 
quainted with  Greek  and  Oriental  MSS.;  but  as  "that  which 
is  wanting  cannot  be  numbered,"  he  necessarily  failed  in  his 
attempt  to  maintain  the  argument  which  he  espoused. 

Kettner,  a  German  writer,  replied  to  Father  Simon  in 
three  publications,  in  which  he  produced  most  of  the  argu- 
ments usually  alleged  on  his  side,  but  mixed  with  many  ab- 
surd and  trifling  observations.  For  instance,  he  reckons  in 
the  second  century,  twenty-seven  ;  in  the  third,  twenty-nine  ; 

*  Dr.  G.  Burnet's  Tracts,  Vol.  I.  pp.  54-57,  printed  1689. 


HAMMOND.  17 

and  in  the  fourth,  forty-two  reasons,  which  might  hinder  the 
fathers  from  appealing  to  the  heavenly  witnesses.* 

■^  John  Howe  appears  to  have  held  the  authenticity  of  the 
received  reading,  and  refers  with  approbation  to  Hammond's 
note  on  the  passage.t  That  note,  though  learned,  will  not 
satisfy  any  who  are  acquainted  with  the  real  merits  and  pres- 
ent state  of  the  controversy.  Mr.  Oxlee  gives  the  following 
very  accurate  account  of  Hammond's  argument ;  to  which  he 
annexes  an  admirable  answer. 

V  "The  grounds  on  which  Dr.  Hammond  has  erected  his 
defence,  are,  first  of  all,  That  the  ordinary  reading  hath  the 
authority  of  many  ancient,  and  all  but  one,  printed  copies ; 
That  the  omission  might  easily  have  been  made  by  an  error 
of  transcription,  owing  to  the  Homceoteleuton ;  That  many 
copies  have  h  rfj  yfj,  on  the  earth,  without  the  former  verse ; 
which  shows,  tliat  this  error  of  omission  was  the  first  com- 
mitted ;  That  it  is  not  imaginable,  if  the  manuscripts  which 
contain  it  not,  be  correct,  how  the  reading  of  the  ordinary 
copies  could  have  got  in,  except  by  gross  fraud  and  forgery  ; 
That,  if  any  fraud  were  used,  it  were  much  more  probable 
that  the  Arians  had  thrust  it  out,  than  that  it  had  been  inter- 
polated by  the  orthodox,  who  could  have  done  very  well 
without  it ;  That  in  St.  Cyprian  the  words  are  distinctly  found, 
as  also  in  Tertullian  ;  That  it  is  allowed  of  St.  Jerome,  that 
he  asserted  the  truth  of  our  reading  from  the  Greek  copies 
which  he  had ;  and  defended  it  against  all,  publicly  com- 
plaining and  contesting  it,  that  in  those  copies  where  it  was 
wanted,  it  was  omitted  or  erased  by  the  fraud  of  the  heretics ; 
That  St.  Ambrose  saitli,  that  the  heretics  did  erase  that  place. 

*  Person's  Letters  to  Tnivis,  Pref.  p.  iii.  Ed.  1790.     Kettner's  works  ap- 
I)eare(l  between  the  years  16U6  iitid  1713. 
t  Howe's  Works,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  3,  4. 


18  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

"  Such  are  the  arguments  from  which  Dr.  Hammond  has 
constructed  his  learned  defence ;  and  of  those  eight  argu- 
ments, six  at  least  are  wholly  groundless,  being  bottomed  in 
ignorance  and  mistake ;  whilst  the  remaining  two  are  justly 
disputed.  So  far  from  the  ordinary  reading  having  the  au- 
thority of  many  ancient  copies,  there  is  but  one  copy  in  all 
forthcoming,  that  contains  it  in  any  shape ;  and  not  even  so 
much  as  one  that  exhibits  it  in  its  present  form.  Then  as  to 
the  printed  copies,  instead  of  one,  there  are  certainly  Jive 
ancient  editions,  the  Jirst  and  second  of  Erasmus,  one  printed 
at  Hagenau  in  1521,  another  at  Strasburg  in  1524,  and  that 
of  Colinasus,  in  1534,  which  have  it  not;  and  several  more, 
including  the  Editio  Princeps,  in  which  the  final  clause  of 
the  eighth  verse  is  removed  from  its  proper  place  to  eke  out 
the  seventh.  Instead  of  many,  there  is  not  one  copy  which 
contains  the  iv  tji  yfj  of  the  eighth  verse,  whilst  destitute  of 
the  seventh.  So  far  from  not  being  imaginable,  it  is  both 
very  imaginable  and  very  clear,  how  the  present  reading  got 
into  the  text ;  which  was  done  first,  by  inserting  the  margi- 
Dal  gloss  on  the  eighth  verse  into  the  body  of  some  of  the 
Latin  manuscripts  ;  and  then  by  the  Greek  editors  translating 
and  re-translating  the  words  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  in- 
serting them  into  the  printed  Greek  text.  Nor  is  there  any 
fraud  chargeable  either  on  the  Arians,  or  on  the  orthodox  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries ;  during  whose  controversy,  and 
for  several  ages  after,  the  passage  of  the  heavenly  witnesses 
was  existing  only  in  the  womb  of  futurity.  The  real  fraud 
was  committed  by  the  Greek  editors,  who,  about  three  hun- 
dred years  ago,  dared  to  insert  it  in  their  respective  editions, 
contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  Greek  manuscripts.  More- 
over, it  is  not  true,  that  the  words  are  either  distinctly  found 
or  alliKled  to  in  Tertullian ;  nor  yet  in  St.  Cyprian,  if  the 
matter  be   but  duly  considered.      Neither  is  it  at  this  day 


MILL.  19 

allowed  of  St.  Jerome,  whatever  it  may  have  been  in  the  time 
of  Dr.  Hammond,  that  he  asserted  the  truth  of  our  reading 
from  his  Greek  copies;  and  defended  it  against  all  opponents. 
This  argument  evidently  rests  on  the  false  supposition,  that 
the  prologue  to  the  Canonical  Epistles  was  written  by  Je- 
rome ;  whereas,  ever  since  the  Benedictine  edition  of  his 
works,  nearly  every  scholar  and  critic  of  eminence,  including 
your  Lordship  amongst  the  number,  have  been  convinced, 
that  it  is  the  composition,  of  some  sophisticator  of  the  sixth 
or  seventh  century ;  and  fabricated  chiefly  with  the  design  to 
procure  for  the  heavenly  witnesses  a  place  in  the  Latin  Ver- 
sion. But,  finally,  what  advocate  of  the  text  is  there  now 
to  be  found  to  confinn  the  statement,  that  St.  Ambrose  has 
charged  the  heretics  with  the  erasure  of  the  passage  ?  In 
what  part  of  the  works  of  that  Father  is  any  such  declara- 
tion forthcoming ;  and  on  what  authority  has  Dr.  Hammond 
made  this  assertion  ?  Nay,  show  me  the  place  only  where 
St.  Ambrose  has  taken  the  least  notice  of  the  passage ;  and 
I  will  be  ready  to  acknowledge,  that  it  is  not  destitute  of  sup- 
port, nor  unworthy  of  being  vindicated,  as  a  genuine  text  of 
Scripture.  Alas,  this  learned  defence  of  Dr.  Hammond  sets 
all  learning  at  defiance ;  nor  is  there  so  much  as  one  single 
argument  made  use  of  by  him,  which  is  not  advanced  upon 
grounds  palpably  mistaken  and  incorrect."  * 

■J  Li  1707,  Dr.  Mill  published  at  Oxford  his  valuable  edition 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  containing  at  least  30,000 
various  readings.  He  admits  the  disputed  passage  into  his 
text ;  but  in  his  prolegomena  and  notes,  he  furnishes  a  mass 
of  evidence,  from  which  it  is  dilficult  to  understand  how  he 
could  draw  an  inference  in  favor  of  the  passage.  So  it  was, 
however.  As  an  honest  critic,  he  fairly  adduces  the  evidence 
*  Oxlee's  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  pp.  4-7. 


20  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

on  both  sides,  and  furuislies  all  liis  readers  with  data,  on 
which  they  may  either  receive  or  reject  his  opinion  as  a  di- 
vine. 

>(  The  Abbe  L.  Roger,  Dean  of  Bourges,  published  at  Paris, 
in  1715,  Two  Dissertations;  in  the  first  of  which  he  defends 
1  John  V.  7.  "  It  ought  to  be  mentioned  to  his  credit,"  says 
Porson,  "  that  having  examined  the  MSS.  in  the  Royal  Li- 
brary at  Paris,  he  subscribed  to  tbe  opinion  of  Lucas  Bru- 
gensis,  Simon,  and  Le  Long,  and  ingenuously  confessed  that 
the  semicircle  in  Stephens's  edition,  which  now  follows  the 
words  €v  Tw  ovpava  in  the  seventh  verse,  ought  to  be  placed 
after  the  words  iv  rfj  yfj  in  the  eighth."  * 

After  the  appearance  of  Mill's  edition,  Tliomas  Emlyn,  a 
Presbyterian  minister  of  Dublin,  published  "  A  Full  Enquiry 
into  the  original  Authority  of  that  Text,  1  John  v.  7.  Con- 
taining an  Account  of  Dr.  Mill's  Evidences  from  Antiquity, 
for  and  against  its  being  genuine.  With  an  Examination 
of  his  Judgment  thereupon.  Humbly  addressed  to  both 
Houses  of  Convocation."  London,  1715,  1719,  8vo.  This  is 
a  bold  and  acute  pamphlet;  in  wliich  the  author  shows  that 
the  passage  is  wanting  in  the  ancient  Greek  MSS.,  the  an- 
cient versions,  and  is  never  cited  by  the  primitive  fathers ; 
and  that  the  other  arguments  offered  in  support  of  the  text 
are  insufficient.  "Whether  it  was  in  jest  or  in  earnest  that  he 
dedicated  his  work  to  the  Convocation,  I  will  not  take  it 
upon  n)e  to  say. 

Father  Simon  and  Emlyn  were  taken  up  by  David  Martin, 
Pastor  of  the  French  Protestant  Church  at  Utrecht.  His 
work  first  appeared  in  French  in  1717 ;  and  in  1719,  it  was 

*  Letters  to  Travis,  Preface,  p.  v. 


EMLYN.  21 

translated,   though   incorrectly,  into   English,  by  Dr.  Sam. 
Jebb,  with  the  following  title : 

"  A  Critical  Dissertation  upon  the  Seventh  Verse  of  the 
Fifth  Chapter  of  St.  John's  First  Epistle.  Wherein  the 
Authentickness  of  this  Text  is  fully  proved  against  the  Ob- 
jections of  Mr.  Simon  and  the  Modern  Arians."  London, 
8vo. 

Emlyn  immediately  published  "  An  Answer  to  Mr.  Mar- 
tin's Critical  Dissertation  on  1  John  v.  7,  shewing  the  Insuf- 
ficiency of  his  Proofs,  and  the  Errors  of  his  Suppositions ; 
by  which  he  attempts  to  establish  the  Authority  of  that  Text 
from  supposed  Manuscripts."     London,  1719,  8vo. 

^Martin,  not  intimidated,  produced,  without  delay,  "An 
Examination  of  Mr.  Emlyn's  Answer  to  the  Dissertation," 
London,  1719,  8vo ;  which  was  closely  followed  by  Emlyn, 
in  a  "  Reply  to  Mr.  Martin's  Examination  of  the  Answer  to 
his  Dissertation,"  London,  1720,  8vo. 

Emlyn's  pamphlets  were  first  published  anonymously; 
they  were  afterwards  collected,  and,  with  other  things,  pub- 
lished with  his  name  in  1719,  and  then  in  his  "Works,  Vol. 
IL  1746. 

V  Martin,  in  another  tract,  was  allowed  to  have  the  last 
word.  "  The  Genuineness  of  1  John  v.  7.  demonstrated  by 
Proofs  which  are  beyond  all  Exceptions,"  &c.  London, 
1722,  8vo.     . 

In  this  performance  he  further  endeavored  to  maintain  his 
former  positions  by  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches,  and  particularly  by  a  Greek  MS.  found  in  Ireland. 
Thus  the  debate  rested  between  these  combatants. 

Emlyn  engaged  in  this  controversy  at  the  request  of  Dr. 
Samuel  Clarke  and  Mr.  Whiston ;  the  former  being  too  wary 
of  his  reputation  to  appear  publicly  in  a  discussion  which 
would  have  confirmed  the  suspicion  of  his  Arianism ;  and 


22  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

the  latter  not  deeming  it  proper,  at  the  time,  to  appear  on 
the  field.  Whiston  tells  us  that  both  Dr.  Bentley  and  Dr. 
Waterland  approved  of  Emlyn's  view  of  the  subject.  "Wat- 
erland,  though  so  zealous  a  Trinitarian,  never  quotes  this 
passage  as  genuine. 

Emlyn  was  a  man  of  undoubted  talents  and  learning, 
whose  severe  and  unmerited  sufferings,  as  an  Arian,  have 
given  considerable  celebrity  to  his  name.  In  his  first  work 
on  this  subject,  he  professes  to  give  only  the  evidence  as 
furnished  by  Dr.  Mill,  in  his  critical  edition  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  his  reasons  for  coming  to  a  different  conclu- 
sion from  that  evidence,  from  that  which  Mill  himself  had 
adopted.  His  doctrinal  sentiments,  perhaps,  naturally  led 
him  to  take  the  strongest  view  of  the  side  of  the  question 
which  he  espoused,  and  to  rejoice  in  the  strength  which  it 
seemed  to  bring  to  the  Arian  cause.  But,  while  the  state  of 
his  mind  predisposed  him  to  give  all  the  weight  possible  to 
the  evidence  against  the  passage,  it  would  be  unfair  to  charge 
him  with  partiality  or  injustice  in  the  discussion. 

In  the  subsequent  tracts  which  he  published,  he,  of  course, 
followed  the  steps  of  his  opponent ;  sometimes  strengthening 
his  original  position,  by  adding  to  the  negative  evidence 
against  the  passage ;  and  at  other  times  exposing  the  igno- 
rance, the  evasions,  the  false  reasonings,  and  inconclusive 
arguments  of  Martin. 

^  Of  David  Martin  it  is  proper  to  speak  well,  as  of  a  man 
who  held  sound  views  of  the  truth,  and  was  zealously  dis- 
posed to  maintain  them.  In  learning  he  was  very  inferior 
to  Simon,  and  much  inferior  to  Emlyn  ;  though  far  from  be- 
ing contemptible  as  a  scholai*.  Considering  the  materials  he 
had  to  work  with,  and  the  opponents  he  encountered,  it  must 
be  confessed  that  he  makes  no  despicable  figure.  His  mode 
of  treating  the  subject,  however,  is  more  calculated  to  throw 


CALAMY.  23 

dust  in  the  eyes  of  his  readers  than  to  enlighten  and  con- 
vince them.  His  judgment  was  too  weak,  and  his  indigna- 
tion at  Arianism  too  ardent  to  enahle  liini  to  do  justice  to  a 
subject  which  he  treated  with  all  the  warmth  of  a  theologian, 
rather  than  with  the  coolness  of  a  critic.  It  has  been  boasted, 
that,  in  the  controversy  with  Emlyn,  he  had  the  last  word ; 
and  that  though  Emlyn  lived  more  than  twenty  years  after 
Martin's  last  publication,  he  never  attempted  to  reply.  But 
this  needs  excite  no  wonder.  Emlyn  thought  there  was  no 
honor  to  be  acquired  in  "  thrice  slaying  the  slain ; "  and  at 
the  close  of  his  second  reply  thus  takes  leave  of  his  oppo- 
nent :  — "  When  a  controversy  comes  to  consist  only  of  te- 
dious repetitions,  and  personal  reflections,  'tis  a  sign  it  either 
is  near  to  an  end,  or  ought  to  be  so."  If  Martin  had  the 
honor  to  be  left  in  possession  of  the  field,  it  has  been  thought 
by  many  learned  men  the  only  honor  he  obtained. 

/  Dr.  Edmund  Calamy,  one  of  the  most  learned  divines 
among  the  English  Dissenters  of  the  period,  was  the  next 
person  who  took  the  field  on  the  affirmative  side  of  this  con- 
troversy. He  published,  in  1722,  "A  Vindication  of  that 
celebrated  Text,  1  John  v.  7,  from  being  spurious ;  and  an 
Explication  of  it,  upon  the  supposition  of  its  being  genuine. 
In  four  Sermons."  London.  8vo.  These  discourses  were 
occasioned  by  the  Arian  Controversy,  which  then  so  unhap- 
pily distracted  both  the  Church  and  the  Dissenters,  and  are 
annexed  to  thirteen  sermons  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
preaciied  at  Salter's  Hall  in  1719  and  1720.  In  these  four 
discourses,  Dr.  Calamy  has  chiefly  in  his  eye  Mr.  Emlyn  and 
Father  Simon,  glancing  occasionally  at  Whiston  and  some 
others.  The  Doctor  had  no  opportunity  of  examining  MSS. 
himself,  and  therefore  on  this  part  of  the  subject  he  reasons 
entirely  on  the  authority  of  others ;  but  justice  obliges  me  to 


24  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

state  that  this  authority  he  does  not  always  allege  correctly. 
The  whole  controversy  is  one  of  fact  and  evidence ;  when  it 
comes  therefore  to  be  observed  tliat  these  are  not  fairly 
stated,  or  are  dexterously  evaded,  a  suspicion  is  induced  that 
the  cause  is  not  good.  It  might  be  inferred  from  Dr.  Cala- 
my's  reasonings,  that  a  considerable  number  of  Greek  and 
Latin  MSS.  and  the  consent  of  many  Greek  and  Latin 
fathers  concurred  in  supporting  this  text.  The  contrary 
had  even  then  been  very  satisfactorily  made  out,  and  is  now 
completely  proved. 

The  best  of  the  four  discoui'ses  is  the  last,  in  which,  as- 
suming the  testimony  to  be  authentic,  he  reasons  on  its  nature 
and  design.  The  Christian  reader  will  cordially  concur  in 
his  concluding  observations.  "  Since  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  witnesses  in  order  to  our  confirma- 
tion, let  us  readily  believe  the  truth  of  whatever  they  testify, 
provided  we  have  but  good  reason  to  believe  that  they  have 
testified  it,  though  it  seem  ever  so  much  to  thwart  our  natural 
sentiments,  or  our  inclinations.  Tliis  is  a  thing  that  highly 
becomes  such  closely  dependent,  and  such  dark  and  dim- 
sighted  creatures  as  we  are ;  and  it  is  what  we  cannot  have 
any  occasion  to  be  ashamed  of.  Where  Father,  Word,  and 
Holy  Spirit  have  gone  before,  let  us  readily  follow.  What 
light  they  are  pleased  to  give  us,  let  us  thankfully  receive, 
and  carefully  improve ;  and  from  them  jointly  let  us  take  our 
measures.  And  then,  if  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  can 
help  us  to  happiness,  we  need  not  be  apprehensive  that  we 
shall  miss  of  it,  either  in  the  life  that  now  is,  or  in  that  which 
is  to  come." 

Some  time  after  the  publication  of  Dr.  Calamy's  Discour- 
ses, an  anonymous  tract  appeared  on  the  same  side,  with  the 
following   title:    "An   Enquiry   into    the  Authority  of  the 


SMALBROKE.  25 

v/  Primitive  Complutensian  Edition  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
principally  foiiuded  on  the  most  Ancient  Vatican  Manu- 
script ;  together  with  some  Research  of  that  Manuscript. 
In  order  to  decide  the  Dispute  about  1  John  v.  7.  In  a  Let- 
ter to  the  Rev.  J\Ir.  Archdeacon  Bentley,  Master  of  Trinity 
College  in  Cambridge."  1722. 

My  copy  of  this  pamphlet  is  contained  in  Lord  Somers's 
Collection  of  Tracts,*  in  which  it  was  reprinted,  without 
mentioning  the  date  of  the  original  edition,  or  the  name  of 
the  author. 

The  writer  of  this  tract  was  [Richard]  Smalbroke,  Bishop 
of  Lichfield  and, Coventry,  who  distinguished  himself  both  in 
the  Arian  Controversy,  and  in  that  with  Woolston.  He  was 
not  disposed  to  adopt  the  views  of  Emljn,  nor  was  he  satis- 
fied with  the  defence  of  the  passage  by  Martin.  Yet  he 
alleges  very  little  that  is  new  on  the  subject.  His  whole 
argument  is  founded  on  the  supposition,  that  the  Complu- 
tensian editors  inserted  the  passage  from  the  Vatican  man- 
uscript. Hence,  he  expresses  his  strong  desire,  that  this 
manuscript  should  be  sought  out  and  re-examined.  Should 
it  be  found  not  to  contain  the  disputed  text,  he  admits  it 
would  confute  the  reasonings  of  his  eseay ;  but  contends,  that 
it  still  would  not  follow  that  the  passage  was  spurious.  The 
following  extract  contains  his  argument :  — 

"  Upon  the  whole,  if  it  shall  appear  from  the  Vatican  MS. 
when  retriev'd,  that  the  Complutensian  editors  inserted  the 
disputed  jjassage  of  St.  .John  from  that  most  ancient  copy, 
an  end  will  be  put  efTtctually  to  the  insults  of  the  adversaries 
of  that  passage.  And  if  it  cannot  be  discovered,  but  must 
be  given  up  for  a  lost  or  perish'd  copy,  yet  still  the  strong 
probabilities  will  contiime,   that   the   Complutensian   editors 

*  [See  Vol.  I.  pp.  4S9-506  of  the  edition  of  174S,  or  Vol.  XFII.  pp.  458- 
472,  ed.  1816.  — Ed.] 
2 


26  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

inserted  the  said  passage  from  it.  However,  it  is  very  just 
and  reasonable  that  the  controversy  about  this  passage  should 
be  suspended,  till  the  greatest  diligence  possible  be  used  to 
find  out  the  celebrated  Vatican  MS.  And  then  it  will  be 
time  enough  to  decide  upon  the  authority  of  this  passage. 
In  the  mean  time,  as  the  method  proposed  by  yourself.  Sir, 
of  endeavoring  to  find  out  whether  the  said  passage  be  gen- 
uine or  not,  by  an  accurate  collation  of  the  most  ancient 
Latin  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  as  supposed  to  be  trans- 
lated from  the  most  ancient  uncorrupt  Greek  copies;  as  this 
consequential  method,  I  say,  is  subsidiary,  and  may  contri- 
bute to  give  some  new  light  in  this  dispute,  (though  it  cannot 
be  allowed  to  be  a  decisive  argument,)  so  is  it  highly  proba- 
ble that  it  is  a  method  which  will  be  serviceable  towards  the 
establishment  of  this  passage  *of  St.  John.  For  far  the 
greater  number  of  those  Latin  MSS.  that  have  been  hitherto 
collated  by  learned  men,  retain  this  passage ;  and  many  of 
them,  no  doubt,  are  very  ancient.  Whatever  be  the  result 
of  collating  your  own  Latin  MSS.,  asserted  by  you  to  be 
very  ancient,  the  public  will  be  glad  to  be  intbrmed  of  it. 
For  though  it  should  happen  that  they  want  this  passage, 
their  authority  will  not  be  conclusive  against  that  of  a 
multitude  of  other  very  ancient  Latin  MSS.  that  are  not 
[Query  ?]  known  to  retain  it. 

"On  the  other  side,  if  it  shall  ^appear  from  the  Vatican 
MS.,  when  retriev'd,  that  the  Complutensian  editors  did  not 
insert  the  disputed  passage  of  St.  John  from  that  most  an- 
cient copy,  but  from  Latin  copies  of  great  antiquity ;  though 
such  a  discovery  would  confute  the  reasons  assigned  in  this 
discourse,  yet  agreeably  to  the  method  proposed  by  yourself, 
Sir,  of  finding  out  the  genuine  Greek  text  by  the  concur- 
rence of  very  ancient  Latin  copies,  that  were  translated  from 
the  most  ancient  and  uncorrupt  Gi"eek  MSS.,  I  say  upon  this 


BENTLEY.  27 

principle,  neither  the  reputation  of  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tion of  the  Greek  Testament,  nor  the  authority  of  this  con- 
troverted text  in  particular,  would  be  affected  by  such  a  dis- 
covery. For  if  Stunica  and  his  brethren  were  persuaded 
that  most,  if  not  all,  the  Greek  MSS.  of  St.  John  that  are 
now  extant,  were  corrupted,  and  that  the  Latin  copies  that 
retain  this  controverted  passage  were  agreeable  to  the  most 
ancient  uncorrupted  Greek  copies,  and  that  consequently  this 
passage  ought  justly  to  be  inserted  in  that  edition,  as  in  fact 
it  was ;  I  do  not  see  why  they  ought  to  undergo  any  censure 
from  yourself,  who  pay  so  great  a  regard  to,  and  lay  so  mighty 
a  stress  upon,  the  ancient  Latin  copies  of  the  New  Testament, 
whatever  opinion  the  rest  of  the  learned  world  might,  on  this 
occasion,  entertain,  by  way  of  diminution,  of  the  authority  of 
the  Complutensian  editors." 

That  neither  the  Vatican  MS.,  nor  any  other  used  by  the 
Complutensian  editors,  contains  the  passage,  has  been  most 
satisfactorily  proved :  consequently  the  main  argument  of 
this  pamphlet,  by  the  Bishop's  own  admission,  is  overthrown. 
The  other  argument,  addressed  to  Dr.  Bentley  himself,  on 
the  ad  hominem  principle,  is  worth  very  little.  Bentley's 
edition  was  never  published,  so  that  how  the  passage  might 
have  appeared  in  it,  may  be  matter  of  dispute ;  but  that  he 
believed  the  passage  to  be  spui'ious  is  well  ascertained,  from 
a  discourse  which  he  delivered  on  the  subject,  which,  it  is 
supposed,  is  still  preserved.  A  letter  also  from  Bentley  to 
an  anonymous  friend,  shows  that  his  sentiments  were  under- 
stood to  be  unfavorable  to  the  authority  of  the  verse ;  and 
certainly  was  not  intended  to  remove  that  unfavorable  im- 
pression. Tiie  execution  of  his  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment on  the  j)rinci[)le  of  that  letter  would  undoubtedly  have 
left  out  the  text.  As  this  letter  is  important,  both  in  refer- 
ence to  this  dispute  and  to  the  nature  of  the  text  of  Bentley's 
intended  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  here  subjoined. 


28  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

"Trin.  Coll.,  Jan.  1,  1716-17. 

"Sir,  —  Yours  of  December  the  20th  came  safely  to  my 
hands,  wherein  you  tell  me  from  common  fame,  that  in  my 
designed  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  I  purpose  to  leave 
out  the  verse  of  John's  Epistle  I.  chap.  5.  v.  7. 

"  About  a  year  ago,  reflecting  upon  some  passages  of  St. 
Ilierom,  that  he  had  adjusted  and  castigated  the  then  Latin 
Vulgate  to  the  best  Greek  exemplars,  and  had  kept  the  very 
order  of  the  words  of  the  original :  I  formed  a  thought,  a 
priori,  that  if  St.  Jerom's  true  Latin  Exemplar  could  now 
be  come  at,  it  would  be  found  to  agree  exactly  with  the 
Greek  text  of  the  same  age :  and  so  the  old  copies  of  each 
language  (if  so  agreeing)  would  give  mutual  proof,  and 
even  demonstration  to  each  other.  Whereupon  rejecting  the 
printed  editions  of  each,  and  the  several  manuscripts  of  seven 
centuries  and  under,  I  made  use  of  none  but  those  of  a  thou- 
sand years  ago  or  above  (of  which  sort  I  have  twenty  now 
in  my  study,  that  one  with  another  make  20,000  years).  I 
had  the  pleasure  to  find,  as  I  presaged,  that  they  agreed  ex- 
actly, like  two  tallies,  or  two  indentures ;  and  I  am  able  from 
thence  to  lead  men  out  of  the  labyrinth  of  60,000  various 
lections  (for  St.  Jerom's  Latin  has  as  many  varieties  as  the 
Greek),  and  to  give  the  text  as  it  stood  in  the  best  copies  in 
the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  witliout  the  error  of  fifty 
words. 

"  Now  in  this  work  I  indulge  nothing  to  any  conjecture, 
not  even  in  a  letter,  but  proceed  solely  upon  authority  of 
copies  and  fathers  of  that  age.  And  what  will  be  the  event 
about  the  said  verse  of  John,  I  myself  know  not  yet ;  having 
not  used  all  the  old  copies  that  I  have  information  of. 

"  But  by  this  you  see,  that  in  my  proposed  work  the  fate 
of  that  verse  will  be  a  mere  question  of  fact.  You  endeavor 
to  prove  (and  that 's  all  you  aspire  to)  that  it  may  have  been 


BENTLEY.  29 

writ  by  the  Apostle,  being  consonant  to  his  other  doctrine. 
This  I  concede  to  you ;  and  if  the  fourth  century  knew  tliat 
text,  let  it  come  in,  in  God's  name :  but  if  that  age  did  not 
know  it,  then  Arianism  in  its  height  was  beat  down,  without 
the  help  of  that  verse :  and  let  the  fact  prove  as  it  will,  the 
doctrine  is  unshaken. 

"  Yours, 

"  Ric.  Bentlet." 

As,  among  other  things  discussed  in  this  controversy,  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Bentley  respecting  the  authority  of  this  verse 
has  been  much  debated,  it  may  be  proper  shortly  to  advert 
to  it.  Person  quotes  Bentley  as  in  opposition  to  the  verse, 
while  Bishop  Burgess  manifests  considerable  anxiety  to  se- 
cure his  suffrage  in  support  of  the  passage ;  and  Bishop  Van 
Mildert  also  inclines  to  doubt  respecting  Bentley's  regarding 
the  passage  as  spurious.*  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  tliis  con- 
cern should  be  felt  to  ascertain  the  opinion  of  so  distinguished 
a  scholar,  on  a  point  he  was  so  well  qualified  to  determine. 
That  opinion,  if  fully  formed,  would  be  worth  a  host  of  J^Iar- 
tins  and  Travises,  men  so  little  qualified  to  do  justice  to  such 
an  investigation.  Crito  Cantabrigiensis  has  set  the  matter  to 
rest  respecting  Bentley.  After  giving  some  account  of  the 
suspicions  entertained  at  the  time,  that  Dr.  Bentley's  opinion 
was  not  in  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  the  passage,  he  thus 
states  the  authority  on  which  it  can  no  longer  be  doubted 
which  side  of  the  question  was  espoused  by  that  eminent 
scholar. 

"Mr.  Whiston,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  (1724),  mentions  Dr. 
Bentley  '  who  read  a  very  learned  Lecture  at  Cambridge,  to 
prove  1  John  v.  7.  to  be  spurious.'  '  But  he  dares  not  now,' 
continues  Whiston,  '  wholly  omit  it  in  the  text  of  his  edition 

*  Life  of  Waterland,  p.  20. 


30  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

of  the  New  Testament  which  he  has  promised:' — a  proof 
of  the  jealousy  with  which  Dr.  Bentley's  proceedings  were 
watched.  On  another  occasion,  Mr.  Whiston  writes  to  the 
same  effect :  '  This  treatise  (Emlyn's  Full  Inquiry),  as  I 
have  been  informed,  was  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Bentley  in  his 
famous  Lecture  at  Cambridge  when  he  stood  candidate  for 
the  Chair  of  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  wherein  he  also 
gave  up  that  text,  and  publicly  proved  it  to  be  spurious.' 
Dr.  Middle  ton,  at  the  very  time  a  resident  member  of  the 
University,  asserts  the  same  thing,  as  a  matter  perfectly  no- 
torious. '  He  (Bentley)  has  already,  we  know,  determined 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  famous  passage,  1  John  v.  7.' 
Such  are  the  accounts  which  were  delivered  by  the  best  in- 
formed of  Dr.  Bentley's  contemporaries ;  and  have,  till  now, 
been  received  as  true,  by  persons  not  at  all  remarkable  for 
credulity.  In  what  way  then  are  these  statements  to  be  set 
aside  ?  Ancient  testimony  is  opposed  by  modern  argument, 
after  the  following  fashion.  Dr.  Bentley  observed,  in  a  Let- 
ter, that  in  his  intended  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  he 
should  make  great  use  of  old  Latin  MSS. ;  that,  not  having 
seen  all  the  old  copies  he  had  information  of,  he  knew  not 
at  that  time  what  would  be  the  fate  of  the  text  in  question : 
and  that  if  he  found  the  text  to  have  existed  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, he  would  admit  it.  And  thus,  because  Dr.  Bentley,  in 
this  letter,  gave  no  opinion  touching  the  verse,  and  attributed 
great  importance  to  the  old  Latin  MSS.,  it  is  inferred  that 
if  he  '  read  a  Lecture  to  prove  this  verse  spurious,' '  the  Lec- 
ture and  the  Letter  must  have  been  very  much  at  variance.' 
Now,  in  answer  to  all  this,  I  would  humbly  suggest  three 
things:  1.  That  a  person  who  will  not  decide  a  question 
before  inquiry  is  by  no  means  incompetent  to  do  so  after- 
wards :  2.  That,  as  the  Letter  was  written  on  the  first  of 
January,  and  the  Lecture  delivered  about  the  first  of  IMay 


BENTLEY.  31 

following,  Dr.  Bentley  may  have  examined  his  MSS.  and 
made  up  his  mind  during  the  interval :  and,  3.  That  as  we 
know  not  how  Dr.  Beutlt-y  reasoned,  we  ought  to  receive  the 
conclusion  at  which  he  arrived  on  the  information  of  his 
contemporaries.  In  truth,  take  the  argument  above  men- 
tioned as  an  argument  ujion  a  mere  hypothetical  case,  and 
its  weakness  is  excessive ;  but  consider  its  conclusion  as  in 
direct  opposition  to  a  fact  stated  on  evidence,  and  it  disap- 
pears, like  a  bubble,  the  instant  it  is  touched For  the 

purpose  of  ascertaining  the  tendency  of  a  Lecture  read  in 
1717,  I  must  be  excused  for  trusting  to  the  testimony  of 
Conyers  Middleton  —  who  lived  on  the  spot  at  the  time 
when  the  Lecture  was  delivered  —  in  preference  to  the  most 
ingenious  conjectures  of  the  present  day,  although  sanctioned 
by  the  high  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Durham  and  Salis- 
bury." * 

The  first  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  published 
in  England,  which  omits  the  passage,  appeared  in  1729. 

*  Crito  Cantab,  pp.  154-158.  [Bp.  Monk,  in  his  Life  of  Bentley,  (Lon- 
don, 1830,  pp.  349-351,)  lias  placed  the  fact  of  Bentley's  rejection  of  the 
pa.ssage  beyond  the  possibility  of  dispute.  Referring  to  the  letter  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1717,  quoted  above,  he  states  that  "  Bentley,  finding  how  much  the 
question  interested  the  public  mind,  and  perceiving  that  there  was  ex- 
pected from  the  editor  of  the  New  Testament  a  clear  expression  of  opinion 
on  this  point,  applied  himself  in  the  course  of  the  four  following  months 
to  examine  all  the  evidence  on  both  sides.  Having  chosen  this  as  the  sub- 
ject of  his  I'rxlection,  he  gave  a  regular  history  of  the  verse,  and  an  ac- 
count of  the  manner  in  which  the  passage  of  St.  John  is  quoted  by  ancient 
■writers;  and  concluded  with  a  decided  rejection  of  the  verse;  maintaining 
at  the  same  time  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  its  orthodox  acceptation, 
and  showing  that  it  stood  not  in  any  need  of  such  dubious  support."  After 
citing  the  testimony  of  those  who  had  heard  the  Lecture,  he  adds:  "  Dr. 
Vincent,  the  late  learned  Dean  of  Westminster,  had  once  the  original  of 
this  piece  in  his  possession,  lent  to  him  by  a  relative  of  Bentley:  a  letter 
of  his  now  lies  before  me,  containing  the  account  of  the  contents  which  I 
have  just  given,  and  adding,  that  to  him  '  it  was  convictiou.'  " — Ed.] 


S2  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

"  The  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  English.  Containing 
the  Original  Text  corrected  from  the  Authority  of  the  most 
Authentic  Manuscripts :  and  a  new  Version  forra'd  agreeably 
to  the  Illustrations  of  the  mo.-t  learned  Commentators  and  Crit- 
ics :  with  Notes  and  various  Readings."   London,  2  vols.,  8vo. 

The  editor  and  translator  of  this  work  was  Dr.  Mace,  of 
whose  history  very  little  is  known,  but  that  he  belonged  to 
the  free  school  of  theology.  The  Greek  text  is  beautifully 
printed,  but  its  authority  as  a  critical  edition  does  not  stand 
high,  as  the  editor  appears  to  have  been  a  rash  and  a  vain 
man,  who  took  very  unwarrantable  liberties  with  the  text, 
and  seldom  assigns  satisfactory  reasons  for  the  alterations, 
which  he  made  with  much  freedom.  Indeed,  his  object 
seems  to  have  been  to  throw  a  degree  of  uncertainty  over 
the  whole  text  and  canonical  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. On  the  disputed  verse,  however,  he  enters  at  some 
length.  lie  gives  a  list  of  Greek  MSS.  in  which  it  is  not  to 
be  found ;  of  Latin  MSS.  in  which  it  is  omitted ;  of  Greek 
fathers  who  do  not  notice  it ;  of  Latin  writers  in  the  first  five 
centuries  who  do  not  mention  it ;  and  of  printed  editions 
which  want  it.  He  then  notices  the  Greek  and  Latin  au- 
thorities which  are  supposed  to  be  in  its  favor.  He  con- 
cludes his  examination  and  comparison  by  exclaiming:  "  In  a 
word,  if  this  evidence  is  not  sutlicient  to  prove  that  the  con- 
troverted text  in  St.  John  is  spurious,  by  wliat  evidence  can 
it  be  prov'd  that  any  text  in  St.  John  is  genuine  ?  The  au- 
thority upon  which  any  Greek  text  is  founded,  is  only  the 
authority  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and  their  authority  is  founded 
upon  that  of  the  antient  Greek  MSS.  Now  all  the  Greek 
fatlicrs,  not  one.  excepted ;  all  the  Greek  MSS.,  the  Irish 
one  only  excepted ;  all  the  antient  Versions,  the  old  Italic 
and  St.  Jerom's,  the  Syriac,  the  -ZEthiopic,  the  Arabic,  and 
the  Coptic;   all   the  antient  Latin  fathers,  and  the  most 


TWFXLS.  38 

antient  Latin  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament,  do  unanimously 
exclaim  against  the  controverted  text."  * 

^  The  publication  of  this  work  led  to  the  following:  —  "A 
Critical  Examination  of  tiie  late  New  Text  and  Version  of 
the  New  Testament :  wherein  the  Editor's  corrupt  Text, 
false  Version,  and  fallacious  Notes  are  detected  and  censured. 
By  Leonard  Twells,  Vicar  of  St.  Mary's.  In  Three  Parts. 
In  the  Second  of  which  Justice  is  done  to  the  famous  Text  of 
1  John  V.  7,  against  his  partial  Representation  of  that  Mat- 
ter."    London,  1731. 

Twells,  the  author  of  this  examination,  was  a  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England,  not  very  distinguished  for  the  ac- 
curacy of  his  researches  or  the  extent  of  his  learning.  It 
was  no  hard  task  to  expose  the  incorrectness  of  Mace's  text, 
and  the  blunders  and  absurdities  of  his  translation.  But 
in  attacking  his  omission  of  the  disputed  passage  in  John, 
Twells  had  not  Mace,  but  Mill's  authorities  to  contend  with. 
In  doing  this,  he  flounders  in  tlie  darkness  of  his.  own  mis- 
conceptions, hazards  the  most  groundless  assumptions,  and 
dogmatically  asserts  what  had  been  repeatedly  disproved. 
He  concludes  a  long  discussion  by  a  passage  precisely  the 
opposite  of  that  quoted  from  Mace,  in  the  latter  part  of 
which,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  he  has  a  just  stroke  at  that 
rash  and  vulgar  ci'itic :  "  The  disputed  passage  of  1  John  v. 
7,  has  so  many  marks  of  genuineness,  that  if  it  had  not  con- 
tained a  doctrine,  to  which  the  disputers  of  this  world  have 
always  shown  the  utmost  aversion,  its  authority  had  never 
been  called  in  question.  An  undoubted  proof  of  which  is 
this,  that  many  texts  of  Scripture,  according  to  their  present 
reading,  are  worse  suppoi'ted  than  this,  and  yet  receive  no 
molestation  from  critics.    And  of  all  others,  the  editor  should 

•  Vol.  II.  p.  934. 
2*  C 


84  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

be  the  last  to  object  to  the  disputed  passage,  as  defective  in 
point  of  testimony,  who  admits  some  lections  into  his  new 
text  upon  the  credit  of  simple  vouchers,  and  others  against 
all  authority  whatever."     (p.  154.) 

David  Casley  published,  in  1734,  "A  Catalogue  of  the 
MSS.  of  the  King's  Library,  together  with  150  specimens  of 
the  manner  of  writing  in  different  ages,  from  the  third  to  the 
fifteenth  century."  In  his  preface  to  this  Catalogue,  he  refers 
to  the  controversy  respecting  the  heavenly  witnesses,  and 
gives  his  opinion,  that  the  Codex  Britannicus  is  "  a  modern 
MS.  probably  translated,  or  corrected,  from  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate." 

Bengelius  published  his  valuable  critical  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  in  1734 ;  in  which  the  principles  on  which 
he  constructed  his  text  led  him  to  insert  the  passage.  He 
adopted  no  reading  which  had  not  previously  appeared  in 
some  printed  edition,  except  in  some  cases  in  the  Apocalypse. 
In  consequence  of  following  a  law,  which  he  had  laid  down 
for  himself,  more  specious  and  better  adapted  to  meet  the 
popular  feeling  on  certain  points  than  solid  in  itself,  he  ad- 
mitted the  passage ;  and  yet  the  statements  in  his  note  seem 
fatal  to  its  authority.  He  allows  that  it  exists  in  no  genuine 
manuscript ;  that  the  Complutensian  editors  interpolated  it 
from  the  Latin  version ;  that  the  Codex  Britannicus  is  good 
for  nothing  ;  that  Stephens's  semicircle  is  misplaced  ;  that  no 
ancient  Greek  wi'iter  cites  the  heavenly  witnesses;  that  many 
Latins  omit  them ;  that  they  were  neither  erased  by  the  Ari- 
ans,  nor  absorbed  by  the  homceoteleuton.  He  thought  the 
evidence  afforded  by  the  African  Church,  and  some  other 
considerations,  favorable  to  the  passage,  and  therefore  in- 
serted it,  but,  on  the  whole,  he  had  no  strong  conviction  of 
its  authenticity. 


BENGELIUS.  35 

As  a  good  deal,  however,  has  been  said  of  the  weight  of 
Bengel's  opinion,  the  following  view  of  his  conduct  in  this 
matter  seems  to  be  characterized  by  great  accuracy  and  can- 
dor. "  Bengelius  was,  probably,  the  first  advocate  of  the 
verse  who  fairly  gave  up  the  notion  that  the  Complutensian 
editors  and  Robert  Stephens  printed  the  passage  as  they 
found  it  in  Greek  MSS.  He  also  allowed  due  weight  to  the 
silence  of  the  fathers  with  regard  to  the  text.  In  fact,  he 
was  a  good  workman ;  and,  in  the  progress  of  his  undertak- 
ing, he  cleared  the  subject  of  many  incumbrances.  He  con- 
demned the  principle  of  defending  a  text  because  it  favored 
a  particular  doctrine.  He  disdained  to  measure  a  person's 
orthodoxy  by  his  reception  of  the  text  of  the  heavenly  wit- 
nesses. He  contended  that  the  great  object  of  inquiry  was, 
whether  what  was  held  to  have  been  written  really  had  been 
written.  He  censured  the  mode  in  which  the  verse  had,  in 
many  instances,  been  defended ;  and  even  mentioned  its  great 
champion,  Dr.  Twells  himself,  with  no  great  reverence.  To- 
wards the  close  of  his  inquiry,  he  seems  to  have  considered 
the  subject  as  one  on  which  learned  men  might  justly  hold 
opposite  02")inions ;  and  in  his  Greek  Testament  he  stated  his 
wish,  that  the  reader  should  suppose,  as  his  own  judgment 
might  direct,  either  the  seventh  verse  to  be  erased,  or  the 
eighth  verse  to  precede  the  seventh ;  for  his  own  part  recom- 
mending the  latter  supposition.  This  mode  of  proceeding 
was  anything  but  agreeable  to  those  who  were  resolved  that 
the  text  should  be  vindicated,  at  all  events.  In  literary  cam- 
paigns, the  established  rule  seems  to  be,  that  he  who  first  de- 
serts a  position  as  untenable,  however  valiantly  he  may  fight 
in  other  instances,  shall  be  accounted  as  little  better  than  one 
of  the  enemy ;  and  accordingly,  Bengelius  was,  more  than 
once,  obliged  to  defend  himself  from  the  charge  of  iuditrer- 
ence  to  the  cause  in  which  be  was  engaged.     '  In  vain/  says 


36-  COXTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.   7. 

Mr.  Por-on,  'may  Simon,  La  Croze,  Michaelis,  and  Gries- 
bach,  declare  their  belief  of  the  doctrine  [of  the  Trinity] ; 
they  must  defend  it  in  the  Catholic  manner,  and  with  the 
Catholic  texts :  nor  is  all  this  enough :  but,  in  defending  the 
genuineness  of  a  particular  text,  they  must  use  every  one  of 
the  same  arguments  that  have  already  been  used,  without 
rejecting  any  upon  tlie  idle  pretence  that  they  are  false  or 
trifling.  I  pity  Bengelius.  He  had  the  weakness,  which 
fools  call  candor,  to  reject  some  of  the  arguments  that  had 
been  employed  in  defence  of  this  celebrated  verse,  and 
brought  upon  himself  a  severe,  but  just  rebuke  from  an 
opposer  of  De  Missy  (Journ.  Brit.,  X.  133)  ;  where  he  is 
ranked  with  those  '  who,  under  pretext  of  defending  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses  with  moderation,  defend  them  so  gently 
that  a  suspicious  reader  might  doubt  whether  they  defended 
them  in  earnest ;  though  God  forbid  that  we  should  wish  to 
insinuate  any  suspicioia  of  Mr.  Bengelius's  orthodoxy.'  "  * 

In  1734,  a  volume  of  discourses  on  the  disputed  passage 
was  published,  with  the  following  title :  "  The  Doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  it  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  explained 
and  confirmed:  its  Consistency  with  the  Principles  of  Natural 
Religion  cleared,  and  Objections  to  the  Contrary  answered, 
&c."  The  author  of  these  discourses  was  the  Eev.  James 
Sloss,  M.  A.,  a  dissenting  minister  of  the  Independent  de- 
nomination at  Nottingham.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man 
of  respectable  attainments  as  a  scholar;  and  defends  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  with  considerable  ability,  though  not  al- 
ways with  those  arguments  which  will  stand  the  test  of  a 
critical  examination.  Of  this  his  choice  of  the  disputed  pas- 
sage for  the  text  of  the  whole  eighteen  sermons  is  an  illus- 

*  Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  pp.  311-314.  [Porson's  Letters  to  Travis,  pp. 
18-20.  — Ed.] 


SLOSS.  37 

tration.  With  his  general  views  or  defence  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  however,  I  have  at  present  nothing  to  do. 
Our  business  is  with  his  account  of  the  testimony  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses.  Dr.  Burgess,  who  seems  to  have  col- 
lected every  name  and  authority  bearing  on  his  side  of  the 
question,  seems  to  have  known  nothing  of  James  Sloss.  This 
will  be  my  excuse  for  noticing  him  more  particularly. 

In  the  fii-st  sermon  he  engages  "  to  trace  the  several  ages 
between  this  and  the  apostles,  and  to  show  how  this  text  in 
particular  has  been  owned  as  authentic  by  the  whole  Chris- 
tian Church,  both  Greek  and  Latin."  Had  he  succeeded  in 
this  attempt,  we  should  never  have  heard  of  the  sneers  of 
Gibbon,  nor  been  favored  with  the  debates  of  Travis  and 
Porson.  But,  alas !  the  words  we  have  quoted,  big  with 
promise,  end  in  miserable  disappointment.  He  quotes  the 
usual  passages  from  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Eucherius,  Vigilius 
Tapsensis,  Eugenius,  Fulgentius,  &c.,  &c.,  and  accordingly 
arrives  at  his  conclusion  with  great  apparent  ease,  that  the 
passage  has  been  disputed  only  by  Arians  and  Socinians. 

The  discourses  appear  to  have  attracted  some  attention,  as 
they  led  to  an  epistolary  controvei'sy  respecting  tlie  authority 
of  the  text,  which  is  printed  at  the  end  of  the  book.  A 
gentleman,  whose  name  is  only  given  as  the  Rev.  T.  P.,  of 

C 1,  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Sloss,  stating  to  him  the 

doubts  which  he  entertained  about  this  passage,  and  the  gen- 
eral grounds  of  those  doubts,  and  requesting  his  solution  of 
them.  The  letter  is  written  very  calmly  and  respectfully, 
and  shows  that  the  writer  of  it  knew  very  well  the  subject 
on  Avhich  he  requests  information.  To  this  Mr.  Sloss  replies 
in  a  letter  of  considerable  length,  which  contains  some  acute 
observations  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  utterly  fails 
in  giving  the  information  on  certain  matters  of  fact  respect- 
ing the  authenticity  of  the  disputed  verse.     This  his  antag- 


S8  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

onist  notices  in  a  second  letter  to  Mr.  Sloss,  which  produced 
two  in  reply.  These  were  followed  by  another  short  epistle 
from  T.  P.,  demanding  whether  Mr.  Sloss  knew  "of  any 
other  Greeh  manuscripts,  beside  that  of  Dublin,  now  in  be- 
ing, with  the  disputed  verse  in  it ;  and,  secondly,  whether  he 
could  prove  that  any  editor  of  the  printed  copies  ever  had 
any  such  MSS.  in  his  possession."  To  this  Mr.  Sloss  re- 
turned a  final  answer,  but  which  does  not  contain  the  infor- 
mation wanted.  Here  the  debate  closed.  The  pai'ties  seem 
to  have  been  matched  nearly  as  Emlyn  and  Martin  were. 
Sloss  was,  like  Martin,  an  orthodox  Trinitarian,  and  his  cor- 
respondent was  evidently  of  the  school  of  Eralyn.  In  learn- 
ing and  knowledge  of  the  subject,  however,  both  Sloss  and 
his  opponent  were  inferior  to  the  two  former  controversialists. 
The  letters  occupy  seventy-eight  pages. 

In  the  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament  published  by 
Wetstein  in  1752,  the  passage  is  marked  as  spurious.  There 
is  also  attached  to  it  a  long  and  important  note,  in  which  the 
mark  is  justified  by  a  reference  to  a  much  greater  number  of 
MSS.  and  versions  than  had  ever  before  been  quoted  in  the 
controversy.  The  leaning  of  Wetstein's  mind  to  the  Unitari- 
an hypothesis  is  well  known,  and  has  excited  a  suspicion  that 
he  may  have  been  influenced  by  it  in  his  rejection  of  this 
passage.  This  is  scarcely  candid,  as  he  states  fairly  and  fully 
the  evidence  on  which  he  formed  his  decision. 

Part  of  the  note,  which  contains  Stephens's  account  of  the 
use  he  made  of  his  MSS.,  and  of  his  mode  of  referring  to 
them,  with  Wetstein's  strictures  on  that  account,  it  may  be 
useful  to  quote. 

"  In  his  preface  to  the  third  edition,  Stephens  says,  '  In  the 
inner  margin  I  have  added  various  readings  of  the  MSS.,  to 
each  whereof  the  mark  of  the  Greek  numeral  is  subjoined, 


WETSTEIN.  39 

which  indicates  the  name  of  the  MS.  whence  it  is  taken ;  or 
of  the  MSS.  when  they  are  many.  And  I  have  put  the 
marks  in  succession  from  one  to  sixteen :  so  that  the  first 
stands  for  the  Complutensian  edition ;  the  second,  for  the 
most  ancient  MS.  in  Italy,  collated  by  my  friends ;  the  third, 
fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  tenth,  and  fifteenth,  the 
copies  which  I  had  out  of  the  King's  Library ;  the  others  are 
those  which  I  was  able  to  collect  fi*om  all  quarters.' 

"  To  this  account  of  things  hy  R.  Stephens,  and  of  his  own 
great  care  and  diligence,  I  have  much  to  object,"  says  Wet- 
stein  ;  "  first,  what  this  very  edition  of  Stephens  plainly 
shows,  that  the  editor  has  varied  from  all  his  MSS.  and  in- 
troduced a  different  reading,  not  only  where  he  has  marked 
in  his  margin  that  a  different  reading  from  that  which  he 
adopted  was  found  in  all  the  MSS. ;  but  often  when  other- 
wise. Add  to  this,  that  his  second  edition,  though  it  has  the 
same  preface  which  is  prefixed  to  the  first,  yet  varies  from  it 
in  fifty  places  at  the  least. 

"  Secondly,  I  would  observe,  that  Stephens  had  not  the 
use  of  sixteen  MSS.  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  but  only  of 
seven.  The  first  copy  he  made  use  of  was  not  a  MS.,  but 
the  Complutensian  edition  of  the  N.  T.  The  second,  which  is 
now  the  Cambridge  MS.,  contains  only  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts.  The  third  contains  only  the  four  Gospels,  and  is  now 
to  be  seen  in  the  King  of  France's  Library,  marked  28G7. 
Also  the  sixth,  in  the  King's  Library,  No.  2866.  The  eighth, 
ditto,  2861.  The  twelfth,  ditto,  2862,  and  the  fourteenth, 
ditto,  2865.  Lastly,  the  sixteenth  is  cited  by  Stephens  only 
in  the  Revelation.  There  is  indeed  a  various  reading  of 
2  Pet.  i.  4,  produced  from  the  fourteenth  MS. ;  but  as  that 
MS.  is  still  in  the  King's  Library,  and  contains  the  Gospels 
only,  it  must  have  been  a  mistnke  of  the  compositors.  "Which 
kind  of  mistakes  occurs  elsewhere,  and  much  more  frequently 


40i  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

in  this  edition  of  Stephens's  than  is  commonly  imagined. 
This  any  one  will  readily  find,  who  compares  the  Complu- 
tensian  ediiion  with  the  various  readings  from  it  noted  down 
by  Stephens.  _ 

"  But,  thirdly,  what  above  all  is  to  be  noted,  the  inspec- 
tion of  Stephens's  MSB.,  and  ocular  demonstration  sliow,  not 
only  that  in  those  MSS.  the  words  iii  heaven,  but  all  that  fol- 
low so  far  as  to  the  spirit  in  the  8th  verse,  are  wanting  [viz. 
the  words  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit : 
and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness 
in  earth],  so  that  Stephens's  semicircle,  which  should  have 
been  put  after  the  words  in  earth  (to  mark  the  whole  of  what 
was  wanting,  as  it  is  put  in  his  Latin  editions),  was  placed 
after  the  words  in  heaven,  by  the  fault  of  the  compositors. 
This  Lucas  Brugensis  had  suspected  to  be  the  case ;  but 
Father  Simon,  Le  Long,  and  L.  Roger  have  clearly  demon- 
strated it.  Consult  the  MSS.  in  the  King's  Library ;  the 
2871st,  which  is  Stephens's  fourth;  the  3425th,  which  is  his 
fifth ;  the  2242d,  wliicli  is  Stephens's  seventh ;  the  2869th, 
Stephens's  fifteenth  (which  however  he  never  seems  to  have 
collated  in  the  Epistles),  2870th,  Stephens's  tenth,  and  Cois- 
linianus  200,  Stephens's  ninth ;  and  it  will  be  manifest  to 
every  one,  as  it  was  to  me  who  inspected  these  MSS.  after 
those  three  eminent  persons  just  named,  that  the  whole  of  ■ 
that  verse  of  the  three  heavenly  witnesses  was  certainly  want- 
ing in  five  of  Stephens's  MSS.  of  the  Catholic  Epistles.  As 
to  his  two  other  MSS.,  as  they  have  nevep-  yet  been  found, 
there  is  no  determining  about  them. 

"  This  mistake  of  the  compositor,"  proceeds  "Wetstein,  "  led 
Beza  wrong :  who  gives  this  note  upon  the  place,  in  his  first 
and  second  editions.  '  This  {7th)  verse  seems  to  me  by  all 
means  to  be  retained:  —  Erasmus  reads  it  so  in  a  British  MS. 
I  also  have  read  it  in  some  of  our  Robert's  (Stephens)  ancient 


MISSY.  41 

MSS.'  Which  is  not  to  be  understood,  as  if  Beza  with  his 
own  eyes  had  seen  those  JMSS.,  for  how  could  it  be,  when 
Stephens  had  left  them  behind  him  at  Paris  ?  but  that  he 
made  use  of  Stephens's  third  edition  for  the  purpose.  But 
it  may  be  said,  that  vStephens  ought  to  have  informed  his 
friend  Beza  of  the  mistake  of  the  compositor,  and  should  not 
have  suffered,  that  through  this  first  edition  of  Beza,  printed 
with  Stephens's  types,  and  the  editions  that  followed,  a  mis- 
take in  so  serious  and  important  a  point  should  have  been 
propagated  far  and  near.  I  confess  there  is  a  great  deal  in 
this  remark.  But  perhaps  Stephens  neglected  to  inform  him 
of  it:  or,  how  shall  we  ascertain,  whether  Beza's  note  was 
approved  or  disliked  by  Stephens  ?  " 

Soon  after  the  publication  of  this  important  work,  several 
letters  appeared  against  Martin  and  the  disputed  passage,  in 
the  Journal  Britannique.*  They  were  written  by  Cesar  de 
Missy,  a  native  of  Berlin,  French  preacher  in  the  Savoy,  and 
at  St.  James's.  They  discovered  great  learning  and  pene- 
tration, but  were  written,  for  the  most  part,  in  rather  too  lu- 
dicrous a  tone  for  serious  criticism.  In  these  letters  were 
particularly  exposed  the  ridiculous  and  false  pretence  of 
Amelotte,  that  the  disputed  passage  was  pontained  in  a  Vati- 
can MS.,  and  the  absurd  inference  which  some  persons  had 
deduced  from  Wetstein's  correction  of  an  erratum  relative  to 
the  three  lectionaries  belonging  to  Cesar  de  Missy ;  this  cor- 
rection having  been  converted  into  an  acknowledgment,  that 
the  passage  was  contained  in  one  of  these  three  lectionaries.f 
"  De  Missy's  fate,"  says  Porson,  "has  been  somewhat  hard. 
He  was  bold  enough  to  attack  Amelotte's  veracity  and  Mai*- 
tiu's  undei-standiiig.    This  provoked  a  nest  of  hornets.    Four 

«  [Tomes  VIII.  and  IX.,  1752.— Ed.] 
t  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  VI.  p.  414. 


42  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

anonymous  writers  fell  upon  him  ;  three  with  personal  abuse, 
the  fourth  with  malignity,  under  the  mask  of  moderation."  * 

Nothing  more  of  importance  on  the  subject  occurred  till 
1754,  when  "Two  Letters  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  to  Mr.  Le 
Clerc,  upon  the  reading  of  the  Greek  text,  1  John  v.  7  and 
1  Tim.  iii.  16,"  appeared.  They  had  been  drawn  up  by  Sir 
Isaac  so  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  century,  and  were  at 
last  published  from  the  MSS.  left  by  Le  Clerc  in  the  Library 
of  the  Remonstrants  in  Amstei'dam.  The  first  Letter  is  en- 
tirely devoted  to  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses.  The 
first  four  pages  of  the  MS.  being  lost,  the  beginning  is  sup- 
plied by  the  editor,  whose  name  does  not  appear.  The  MS. 
was  sent  to  Le  Clerc  by  Mr.  Locke,  and  is  said  to  have  been 
in  his  handwriting.  It  is  almost  entirely  occupied  with  a 
history  of  what  Sir  Isaac  considered  the  manner  in  which  the 
testimony  came  to  be  surreptitiously  inserted,  first  into  the 
Latin  MSS.,  and  then  into  the  printed  Greek  text.  Some 
of  his  remarks  bear  very  hard  upon  Beza,  whom  he  calls  a 
dreamer,  and  almost  justify  the  sneers  of  Gibbon.  Sir  Isaac 
assigns  several  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Comjilutensian 
editors  translated  the  passage  from  the  Latin  Vulgate.  And, 
certainly,  the  marginal  note  attached  to  the  passage  in  the 
Complutensian  edition,  a  practice  which  is  adopted  in  that 
edition  only  in  two  other  places  where  the  Greek  MSS.  are 
defective,  and  the  silence  of  S tunica,  one  of  the  editors,  in 
his  controversy  with  Erasmus  on  the  authority  of  Greek 
MSS.,  are  strong  negative  proofs  that  the  passage  was  trans- 
lated from  the  Vulgate.  Sir  Isaac  also  endeavors  to  explain 
the  passage  and  its  context  without  the  three  heavenly  wit- 
nesses. He  considers  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood, 
to  mean  the  promised  spirit,  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  his 

*  Letters  to  Travis,  p.  19. 


NEWTON.  48 

passion,  in  connection  with  his  resurrection,  all  bearing  testi- 
mony to  his  character  and  mission  as  the  Son  of  Grod. 

The  attention  which  this  eminent  man  paid  to  biblical  sub- 
jects must  have  been  very  considerable.  The  present  tract 
discovers  a  good  deal  of  critical  reading,  which,  considering 
his  circumstances  and  pursuits,  would  not  have  taken  place, 
had  his  taste  for  the  Scriptures  not  been  cultivated.  His 
leanings  to  Arianisra,  which  were  no  doubt  promoted  by  his 
acquaintance  with  Clarke,  Whiston,  and  other  eminent  per- 
sons of  that  school,  are  to  be  deplored.  But  his  character 
presents  a  noble  contrast  to  that  ruthless  infidelity,  or  cheer- 
less scepticism,  which  characterize  men  infinitely  his  inferiors 
in  aU  the  attainments  of  genuine  philosophy. 

I  cannot  withhold  from  the  reader,  as  Sir  Isaac's  tract  is 
not  in  many  hands,  his  parajihrase  of  the  verses  in  which  the 
words  alleged  to  be  spurious  have  been  inserted.  It  is,  at 
least,  a  plausible  interpretation  of  a  very  difRcult  passage. 

"  W/to  is  he  that  overcometh  the  tcorlJ,  but  he  that  helieveth 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God;  that  Son  spoken  of  in  the 
Psalms,  where  he  saith, '  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee.'  This  is  He  that,  after  the  Jews  had  long  ex- 
pected him,  came,  first  in  a  mortal  body,  by  baptism  of  tvater^ 
and  then  in  an  immortal  one,  by  shedding  his  blood  upon  the 
cross,  and  rising  again  from  the  dead ;  not  by  water  only,  but 
by  water  and  blood ;  being  the  Son  of  God,  as  well  by  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead  (Acts  xiii.  33)  as  by  his  super- 
natural birth  of  the  Virgin.  (Luke  i.  35.)  And  it  is  the 
Spirit  also,  that,  together  with  the  water  and  blood,  beareth 
witness  of  the  truth  of  his  coming;  because  the  Spirit  is  truth; 
and  so  a  fit  and  unexceptionable  witness. 

*■'■  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  of  his  coming:  the 
Spirit,  which  he  promised  to  send,  and  which  was  since  shed 
forth  upon  us  in  the  form  of  cloven  tongues,  and  in  various 


44  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

gifts ;  the  baptism  of  ivater,  wherein  God  testified,  *  This  is 
my  beloved  Son  ' ;  and  the  shedding  of  his  hJood,  accompanied 
with  his  resurrection,  whereby  he  became  the  most  faithful 
martyr,  or  witness,  of  this  truth.  Arid  these  three,  the  Spirit, 
the  baptism,  and  passion  of  Christ,  agree  in  witnessing  one 
and  the  same  thing,  (namely,  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,) 
and  therefore  their  evidence  is  strong :  for  the  law  requires 
but  two  consenting  witnesses,  and  here  we  have  three :  and 
if  we  receive  the  untness  of  men,  the  threefold  witness  of  God, 
which  he  bare  of  his  Son,  by  declaring  at  his  baptism,  '  This 
is  my  beloved  Son ' ;  by  raising  him  from  the  dead,  and  by 
pouring  out  his  Spirit  on  us,  is  greater,  and  therefore  ought 
to  be  more  readily  received. 

"  This  [Thus  ?]  is  the  sense  plain  and  natural,  and  the  ar- 
gument full  and  strong ;  but,  if  you  insert  the  testimony  of 
*  the  three  in  heaven,'  you  interrupt  and  spoil  it.  For  the 
whole  design  of  the  Apostle  being  here  to  prove  to  men,  by 
witness,  the  truth  of  Christ's  coming,  I  Avould  ask,  how  the 
testimony  of  '  the  three  in  heaven '  makes  to  this  purpose. 
If  their  testimony  be  not  given  to  men,  how  does  it  prove  to 
them  the  truth  of  Christ's  coming  ?  If  it  be,  how  is  the  tes- 
timony in  heaven  distinguished  from  that  on  earth?  It  is 
the  same  Spirit  which  witnesses  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  If 
in  both  cases  it  witnesses  to  us  men  wherein  lies  the  differ- 
ence between  its  witnessing  in  heaven,  and  its  witnessing  in 
earth  ?  If,  in  the  first  case,  it  does  not  witness  to  men,  to 
whom  doth  it  witness?  And  to  what  purpose?  And  how 
does  its  witnessing  make  to  the  design  of  St.  John's  discourse? 
Let  them  make  good  sense  of  it  who  are  able.  For  my  part, 
I  can  make  none."* 

*  Newton's  Letters  to  Le  Clerc,  pp.  74-76.  [This  tract  was  published 
more  correct!}'-  in  Vol.  V.  of  Horsley's  edition  of  Newton's  Works  (Lon- 
don, 1786,  4to),  under  the  title,  "An  Historical  Account  of  Two  Notable 


BENSON.  45 

In  1756,  the  second  edition  of  Dr.  Benson's  work  on  the 
Catholic  Epistles  was  published.*  In  the  second  volume  of 
this  learned  and  valuable  Commentary,  there  is  a  Disserta- 
tion "  Concerning  the  Genuineness  of  1  John  v.  7,  8."  Dr. 
Benson,  as  might  be  expected,  took  decided  part  against  the 
reading.  His  Dissertation  does  not  contain  much  that  is 
original ;  but  gives  a  very  lucid  view  of  the  substance  of  the 
evidence  on  which  Dr.  Benson  formed  his  opinion.  He  be- 
gins with  the  fathers,  and  shows,  that  while  TertuUian, 
Cyprian,  and  Jerome  have  been  referred  to,  no  satisfactory 
evidence  exists  in  their  writings  that  any  of  them  had  read 
this  passage.  He  next  notices  the  Greek  MSS.,  and  alleges 
that  they  furnish  no  authority  for  the  insertion  of  the  passage. 
The  ancient  versions,  he  maintains,  are  all  on  the  same  side. 
The  evidence  against  the  text  is  next  produced,  and  "  the 
sum  of  the  whole  matter "  is  thus  given  by  the  Doctor,  in 
the  way  of  accounting  for  the  introduction  of  the  passage. 

"  To  sum  up  the  whole  matter.  The  true  state  of  the  case 
seems  to  have  been  this :  As  these  words  were  not  Avritten 
by  St.  John  himself,  they  were  not  in  any  ancient  MS.  or 
Version,  nor  known  to  any  of  the  ancient  fathers.  But  Ter- 
tuUian applying  these  words  of  ver.  8  (These  three  are  one) 
to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  Cyprian  took  that  for  the 
mystical  interpretation  of  ver.  8.  By  him,  Facundus,  Eu- 
cherius,  Fulgenlius,  Austin,  and  others,  were  led  into  that 
interpretation.     And,    very    probably,    Cyprian   himself,    or 

Corruptions  of  Scripture.  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  Now  first  published 
entire  from  a  MS.  in  the  Author's  handwriting  in  the  possession  of  tho 
Rev.  Dr.  Ekens,  Dean  of  Carlisle."  It  was  reprinted  in  Sparks's  "  Collec- 
tion of  Essays  and  Tracts  in  Theology,"  Vol.  II.  (Boston,  1823),  and  in  a 
separate  volume,  London,  1830,  8vo.  The  quotation  given  above  is  con- 
formed to  the  text  in  Horsley's  edition.  —  I]d.] 

*  Sir.  Butler  strangely  characterises  this  work  as  "  a  Paraphrase  of  tlie 
Gospels."     Sec  HorsB  Bib.  I.  p.  378. 


48  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

rather  some  of  his  admirers,  wrote  that  interpretation  in  the 
margin,  over-against  ver.  8,  as  a  gloss.  And  by  some  future 
transcriber  it  was  incorporated  into  the  text  itself. 

"There  ai-e,  at  this  day,  several  MSS.,  both  Greek  and 
Latin,  which  have  it  in  the  margin.  And  such  insertions  of 
explanatory  words,  or  phrases,  from  the  margin,  into  the  text, 
are  common  in  MSS.  Jerome,  in  one  of  his  letters,  says, 
that  an  explanatory  note,  which  he  himself  had  made  in  the 
margin  of  his  psalter,  had  been  incorporated  by  some  tran- 
scriber  into  the  text.  And  Dr.  Mill  points  out  many  similar 
instances. 

"  The  English  Polyglot,  and  six  other  editions  of  the  Sy- 
riac  New  Testament,  inform  us  that  the  Syriac  Version  has 
not  the  seventh  verse.  Tremellius  likewise  observes  the 
same  thing.  But  in  a  marginal  note,  he  has  translated  the 
seventh  verse  into  Syriac ;  though  he  dared  not  insert  it  into 
the  text  in  his  edition.  However,  Gutbirius  inserted  it,  con- 
trary to  the  authority  of  all  the  Syriac  copies,  both  printed 
and  manuscript.  And,  after  him,  Schaaf,  without  the  author- 
ity of  one  MS.  copy  of  the  New  Testament  in  Syriac,  hath 
likewise,  in  his  edition  of  the  Syriac  New  Testament,  boldly, 
without  any  apology,  and  without  any  mark  of  distinction, 
inserted  Tremellius  his  translation  into  the  text.  Thus  we 
see  by  what  steps  it  might  be  at  first  brought  into  the  text. 
Some  zealous  men  have  called  it  a  grand  forgery.  And  Gut- 
birius and  Schaaf  cannot  easily  be  excused.  But  it  is  possi- 
ble that  the  transcriber  who  first  inserted  it  in  the  text  might 
apprehend,  that,  as  he  found  it  interlined,  or  in  the  margin, 
it  had  been  omitted  by  the  former  copyist ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, he  did  well  in  supplying  that  omission.  Others,  again, 
copied  after  him.  And  thus  it  got  into  some  few  (but  not 
into  the  generality)  of  Latin  copies.  From  those  Latin 
copies,  or  quotations  from  thence,  it  was  very  probably  trans- 


GIBBON.  47 

lated  into  Greek,  and  inserted  into  the  text  in  some  modern 
manuscripts,  and  interlined,  or  put  in  the  margin  of  MSS. 
of  an  older  date,  —  as  it  is  now  found  to  be  in  several  MSS., 
Greek  and  Latin,  in  both  public  and  private  libraries. 

"  To  make  it  spread,  some  busybody,  about  the  eighth  or 
ninth  century,  by  a  pious  fraud,  forged  the  preface  to  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  under  the  name  of  Jerome.  And  to  give 
it  the  authority  of  antiquity,  ascribed  the  restoring  of  this 
disputed  text,  in  the  Latin  copies,  to  that  learned  father;  at 
the  same  time  complaining  of  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  Latin 
translators  for  leaving  it  out.  From  thence  it  appears,  that 
when  that  preface  was  forged,  the  disputed  text  was  in  very 
few  Latin  copies.  But  such  a  preface,  under  the  name  of 
Jerome,  would  induce  many  for  the  future  to  insert  it. 

"  Thus  it  may  be  accounted  for  why  it  is  not  found  in  the 
ancient  Greek  MSS.  or  the  ancient  versions ;  why  it  is  not 
quoted  by  the  primitive  fathers ;  why  it  appears  more  early 
in  the  Latin  than  in  the  Greek  MSS. ;  and  how  it  comes  to 
be  in  our  printed  copies  at  this  day."  * 

In  the  second  edition  of  Bowyer's  Conjectures  on  the  New 
Testament,  4to,  1784,  there  is  a  note  of  some  length  on  the 
passage,  which  shows  that  the  opinions  of  the  learned  printer 
were  unfavorable  to  its  authority.  All  the  reasons  which  he 
assigns  are  adduced  at  greater  length  by  one  or  other  of  the 
writers  in  the  controversy,  and  therefore  do  not  require  to  be 
distinctly  noticed. 

"We  now  come  to  the  grand  controversy  on  this  important 

passage,    which   originated   in    the   following   paragraph    in 

Gibbon's  "  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 

Empire."     Speaking  of  the  Catholic  frauds,  he  says,  "  The 

*  Benson's  Paraphrase,  Vol.  II.  pp.  644-646,  2d  edit. 


48  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

memorable  text  which  asserts  the  unity  of  the  three  who 
bear  witness  in  heaven,  is  condemned  by  the  universal  si- 
lence of  the  orthodox  fathers,  ancient  versions,  and  authen- 
tic MSS.  It  was  first  alleged  by  the  Catholic  Bishops  whom 
Hunneric  summoned  to  the  Conference  of  Carthage.  An  al- 
legorical interpretation,  in  the  form,  perhaps,  of  a  marginal 
note,  invaded  the  text  of  the  Latin  Bibles,  which  were  re- 
newed and  corrected  in  a  dark  period  of  ten  centuries.  After 
the  invention  of  printing,  the  editors  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment yielded  to  their  own  prejudices,  or  those  of  the  times ; 
and  the  pious  fraud,  which  was  embraced  with  equal  zeal  at 
Rome  and  at  Geneva,  has  been  infinitely  multiplied  in  every 
country  and  every  language  of  modern  Europe."  In  a  note 
to  part  of  this  passage,  he  adds,  ''  The  three  witnesses  have 
been  established  in  our  Greek  Testaments  by  the  prudence 
of  Erasmus ;  the  honest  bigotry  of  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tors ;  the  typographical  fraud,  or  error,  of  Robert  Stephens, 
in  the  placing  a  crotchet;  and  the  deliberate  falsehood,  or 
strange  misapprehension,  of  Theodore  Beza."* 

On  this  last  sentence  volumes  of  curious  and  angry  contro- 
versy have  been  written.  It  shows  how  closely  Gibbon  had 
looked  into  the  matter,  while  the  choice  of  his  epithets  at 
once  illustrates  his  knowledge  of  the  subject,  and  the  delight 
he  took  in  reproaching  the  professors  of  Christianity.  The 
infidelity  of  the  writer  is  ill-dis*guised  in  the  studied  ambi- 
guity of  his  phraseology,  which  insinuates  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  established  by  worldly  prudence,  bigotry, 
fraud,  or  misapprehension.  He  well  knew  that  this  was  not 
the  case.  But  that  prejudiced  enemy  to  Christianity  was 
ever  regardless  of  decency  and  justice,  where  its  claims  and 
its  character  were  concerned.  "  He  often  makes,  when  he 
cannot  readily  find,  an  occasion  to  insult  our  religion,  which 
»  Rom.  Emp.,  Ch.  XXXVII.  Vol.  VI.  pp.  291-293,  Ed.  1807. 


TRAVIS.  49 

he  hates  so  cordially,  that  he  might  seem  to  revenge  some 
personal  injury.  Such  is  his  eagerness  in  the  cause,  that  he 
stoops  to  the  most  despicable  pun,  or  to  the  most  awkward 
perversion  of  language,  for  the  pleasure  of  turning  the  Scrip- 
ture into  ribaldry,  or  of  calling  Jesus  an  impostor."* 

Had  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  however, 
contained  nothing  more  injurious  to  the  doctrine  or  revela- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  this  statement,  and  the  insinuation 
implied  in  it,  might  have  been  allowed  to  pass.  Like  many 
other  tilings  of  a  similar  nature,  it  would  have  silently  floated 
down  the  current  of  time,  and  would  soon  have  been  lost  in 
that  oblivion  to  which  all  accusations  against  the  "Word  of 
God  are  doomed.  But,  unfortunately,  Gibbon  had  a  name, 
and  his  works  enjoyed  celebrity.  It  was  the  fashion  of  the 
day  to  write  apologies  for  the  Bible ;  and  some  men  who 
would  never  have  risen  to  public  notice  otherwise,  endeavored 
to  write  themselves  into  fame  or  preferment  by  attacking  the 
infidel  historian. 

In  an  evil  hour,  and  prompted  by  some  evil  genius,  the 
V  Kev,  George  Travis,  Archdeacon  of  Chester,  took  up  his 
pen,  to  defend,  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  the  testi- 
mony of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  against  the  charges  pre- 
ferred in  the  above  passage.  He  addressed  three  letters  to 
Mr.  Gibbon  on  this  subject,  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for 
1782.  These  he  reprinted  separately,  along  Avith  two  more, 
in  a  quarto  volume,  in  1784.  In  178G,  they  appeared  again 
with  additions.  In  the  same  Magazine  for  1788  and  1789, 
Professor  Porson  replied  to  Travis.  In  1790,  Travis  wrote 
another  letter  on  the  subject,  in  the  same  Magazine,  to  which 
Porson  replied  in  the  ibllowiug  month.  And  in  1794,  the 
Archdeacon  published  the  whole,  in  a  large  octavo  volume, 

*  Person's  Letters  to  Travis,  Pref.,  pp.  xxviii.,  xxix. 
3  D 


50  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

This  is  the  best  edition,  and  which  has  been  consulted  in 
writing  these  observations. 

In  these  letters,  it  is  the  object  of  the  writer  to  defend 
Erasmus,  the  Complutensian  editors,  Beza,  and  Stephens, 
against  Mr.  Gibbon's  charges ;  to  maintain  the  authenticity 
of  the  disputed  passage ;  to  reply  seriatim  to  the  leading 
writers  who  had  disputed  it ;  and  to  account  for  its  omission 
from  so  many  MSS.  and  versions.  That  Travis  undertook 
a  herculean  task  is  very  evident ;  that  he  sunk  under  it,  can 
excite  no  surprise.  What  he  wanted  in  argument  he  made 
up  by  boldness ;  and  contrived  to  maintain  an  appearance  of 
truth  and  victory,  by  carefully  avoiding  to  meet  his  enemy  in 
the  face. 

He  succeeds  in  defending  the  first  editors  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament  against  the  base  insinuations  of  Gibbon ; 
for  though  the  cause  must  be  given  against  Mr.  Archdeacon 
Travis,  no  one  will  concede  to  the  historian  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  that  the  learned  editors  were  bigots,  hypocrites,  or 
fools.  But  when,  from  defending  their  character,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  defend  their  text,  the  ground  becomes  very  different, 
and  the  tactics  entirely  of  another  order.  Instead  of  pursu- 
ing a  straightforward  course,  in  order  to  reach  his  point,  he 
is  obliged  to  follow  one  the  most  indirect  and  circuitous.  In 
place  of  beginning  at  the  beginning,  he  begins  at  the  end. 
He  commences  with  the  writers  and  authorities  next  to  the 
period  of  the  Reformation,  and  endeavors  to  trace  the  stream 
up  to  the  fountain  head.  Instead  of  the  evidence  becoming 
clearer  and  stronger,  however,  it  becomes  the  feebler  and 
more  obscure  the  longer  he  pursues  it ;  till,  at  last,  notwith- 
standing his  perpetual  mistakes  and  misstatements,  it  is  left 
in  uncertainty  and  darkness.  His  account  of  the  testimony 
of  the  writers  whom  he  quotes  in  support  of  the  passage  is, 
in  many  instances,  not  to  be  depended  on,  as  it  is  often  quoted 


TRAVIS.  51 

at  second-hand,  or  some  circumstance  is  left  out  of  view,  which, 
when  understood,  either  in  a  great  measure  or  entirely  sub- 
verts it.  His  account  of  the  MSS.  of  Valla  and  Stephens  is 
altogether  erroneous ;  and  the  impression  which  he  labors  to 
produce,  that  a  great  number  of  Greek  and  Latin  MSS.  con- 
tain the  verse,  is  directly  the  reverse  of  the  truth. 

He  makes  a  show,  for  it  is  often  little  better,  of  replying 
io fifty-jive  arguments  or  objections  of  Di*.  Benson;  and  pro- 
nounces that  his  Dissertation,  "for  intrepidity  of  assertion, 
disingenuousness  of  quotation,  and  defectiveness  of  conclu- 
sion, has  no  equal,  stands  aloof  beyond  all  parallel  —  as  far 
as  his  reading  extends  —  either  in  ancient  or  in  modern 
times."  This  is  somethinn;  like  the  ass  kickinj^  the  dead 
lion  ;  but  which,  as  we  shall  find,  was  destined  to  receive  no 
ordinary  correction.  Tlie  character  given  to  Dr.  Benson's 
work,  in  the  opinion  of  Porson,  more  properly  belongs  to  the 
production  of  Travis.  In  the  same  manner,  he  professes  to 
meet  fifty-one  arguments  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton ;  whose  argu- 
ments were  not  more  powerful  than  Benson's,  but  who  is 
treated  with  more  courtesy  than  the  Presbyterian  divine. 
Griesbach  and  Bowyer  are  dispatched  in  a  very  few  pages, 
and  not  more  satisfactoi'ily  than  the  former. 

In  short.  Archdeacon  Travis,  though  a  very  respectable 
clergyman,  and  an  able  "  tythe-lawyer,"  was  altogether  dis- 
qualified by  his  prejudices,  his  ignorance,  and  his  injudicious- 
ness,  from  rendering  any  important  service  to  the  cause  of 
theological  literature,  in  this  important  controversy.  His 
own  summing  up,  in  the  following  passage,  will  show  the 
nature  of  many  of  his  proofs,  or  rather  assumptions,  and  the 
high  tone  of  confidence  with  which  he  claims  the  victory. 

"The  result,  then,  from  the  whole  is,  —  that  The  verse  in 
question  seems,  beyond  all  degree  of  serious  doubt, 

TO    HAVE    STOOD    IN    THIS    EPISTLE    WHEN    IT    ORIGINALLY 


52  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

PROCEEDicD  FROM  THE  PEN  OF  St.  John.*  In  the  Latin, 
or  "Western  Church,  the  suffrages  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian, 
of  Marcus  Celcdensis  and  Phoebadius,  in  its  favor,  aided  by 
the  early,  the  solemn,  the  public  appeal  to  its  authority  by 
the  African  Bishops  under  Huneric ;  the  Preface,  Bible,  and 
conscripta Jides  of  Jerome;  the  frequent  and  direct  citations 
of  the  verse  by  Eucherius,  Fulgentius,  Vigilius,  and  Cassi- 
odorius :  —  these,  supported  as  to  the  Greek,  or  Eastern 
Churches,  by  the  Dialogue  imputed  to  Arius  and  Athanasius, 
as  well  as  by  the  Synopsis  of  this  Epistle ;  by  the  Armenian 
Version,  which  was  framed  from  Greek  MSS. ;  by  the  very 
early  and  constant  use  of  the  anoaTokos  in  the  same  Greek 
Church,  (an  usage  which  seems  to  be  deducible  even  from 
the  Apostles  themselves,)  and  by  its  public  Confession  of 
Faith :  —  all  t'.iese  evidences,  arising  within  the  limit  of  the 
sixth  century  (to  pass  over  the  immense  accumulation  of 
testimony  which  has  been  produced  subsequent  to  that  era), 
offering  themselves  to  the  test  of  the  judgment,  combined  in 
one  point  of  view,  unchecked  by  a  single  negation,  unre- 
buked  by  any  positive  contradiction,  unresisted  by  any  the 
smallest  direct  impeachment  of  the  authenticity  of  tlie  verse, 
throughout  all  the  annals  of  all  antiquity:  —  all  these  cir- 
cumstances seize  the  mind  as  it  were  by  violence,  and  com- 
pel it  to  acknowledge  the  verity,  the  original  existence  of  the 
verse  in  question.  For  although  it  undoubtedly  appears 
strange,  on  a  first  consideration  of  the  subject,  that  several 
ancient  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  have  not  quoted,  or  com- 
mented upon  this  verse,  in  those  parts  of  their  works  which 
have  descended  to  the  present  age ;  although  it  appears,  on 
a  primary  view,  still  more  strange,  that  those  numerous 
Greek  MSS.  (not  Latin,  for  a  vast  majority  of  these  have 
always  read  the  verse,)  which  formerly  exhibited  this  pas- 

*  The  capitals  are  Travis's. 


TRAVIS.  53 

sage  of  St.  John,  should  be  now  in  general  (not  totally)  lost, 
rather  than  those  few  which  did  not  contain  it :  yet  both 
these  objections,  when  aggravated  to  the  utmost,  are  but^>re- 
sumptions,  amount  to  no  more  than  negative  evidence ;  and 
they  have  been  already,  as  it  should  seem,  comjjletely  and 
satisfactorily  explained  and  avoided,  or  accounted  for  and 
defeated.  And  from  whethersoever  of  the  sources,  which 
have  been  heretofore  assigned,  the  partial  occultation  of  this 
verse,  antecedent  to  the  times  of  Jerome,  proceeded,  that 
temporary  obscuration  was  dispersed  at  once,  and  the  verse 
was  summoned  forth  to  shine  in  its  proper  sphere,  by  his 
Preface  and  Version ;  which  are  confirmed  and  established 
(if  they  could  be  said  to  need  any  confirmation  or  establish- 
ment) by  the  revision  of  Alcuinus  under  the  direction  of 
Charlemagne.  And  this  verse  hath  ever  since  (if  we  may 
now  descend  to  modern  times)  not  only  maintained  its  place 
in  every  public  version  which  hath  been  in  use  since  the  days 
of  Jerome ;  but  it  hath  also  been  ever  since  uniformly  quoted, 
and  i-eferred  to  by  individual  writers  of  the  first  eminence  for 
learning  and  integrity,  in  Asia  and  in  Africa,  as  well  as  in 
Europe,  without  the  least  question,  without  the  smallest  in- 
terruption, EXCEPT  the  invasion  of  Erasmus,  which,  however, 
was  soon  repelled,  and  of  which  he  frequently  repented  and 
was  ashamed,  unless  his  own  paraphrase  on  tliis  verse,  and 
his  Ratio  Verce  ThcoJogia;,  be  the  coni[)letest  pieces  of  liter- 
ary hypocrisy  now  subsisting ;  —  and,  except  the  assaults  of 
some  more  modern  objectors,  which,  nevertheless,  it  is  hoped 
and  trusted,  liave  been  repulsed  in  the  preceding  Disserta- 
tion, in  a  manner,  although  unequal  to  the  subject,  yet  suf- 
ficiently adequate  to  the  serious  conviction  of  every  unpreju- 
diced inquirer  after  truth."  * 

Inaccurate  and  unsatisfactory  to  scholars  as  were  the  Let- 

*  Pages  455-459. 


54  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

ters  of  Travis,  they  produced,  when  published,  a  considera- 
ble impression.  "  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  account  for  their 
success.  The  insidious  speculations  on  religion,  which  dis- 
tinguished the  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire,  made  that  work  an  object  of  intense  interest  to 
the  literary  public.  The  principles  avowed  in  the  first  vol- 
ume called  forth  adversaries  in  abundance ;  and  the  author, 
notwithstanding  his  cool  and  philosophical  temperament,  was 
at  last  instigated  to  take  up  arms  in  his  own  defence.  Hos- 
tilities against  the  first  volume  had  scarcely  begun  to  abate, 
when  the  publication  of  the  second  and  third  furnished 
grounds  for  new  engagements.  Mr.  Travis  very  adroitly 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  that  was  presented,  and 
thus  obtained  a  degree  of  consequence  as  the  opjDonent  of 
Mr.  Gibbon,  which  he  could  not  have  obtained  as  tlie  mere 
advocate  of  the  controverted  text.  There  was  besides,  in  the 
mode  of  conducting  his  attack,  much  that  was  very  likely  to 
impose  upon  the  generality  of  mankind.  He  proclaimed  him- 
self the  champion  of  the  great  cause  of  orthodoxy ;  assumed 
the  boldest  and  most  uncompromising  language  ;  represented 
the  early  friends  of  the  verse  as  having  sustained  the  most 
flagrant  injuries  from  the  hand  of  the  historian ;  and  called 
upon  the  offender  '  to  traverse  or  to  acknowledge,  —  to  resist 
or  to  submit.'  With  regai-d  to  the  composition  of  his  work, 
his  expression  was  pointed ;  his  style,  as  Dr.  Hey  thought, 
was  '  spirited  and  eloquent,' —  although,  in  the  opinion  of  a 
severer  judge,  too  frequently  gorgeous  and  declamatory  ;  and 
his  sentiments  seemed  to  indicate  a  high  tone  of  moral  and 
religious  feeling.  The  effect  of  all  this  was,  that  not  being 
in  the  least  scrupulous  about  his  premises,  —  but  plausible  in 
his  reasonings,  and  confident  in  his  conclusions,  —  he  left,  I 
have  no  doubt,  an  impression  on  many  minds,  that  uncom- 
mon abilities  and  acquirements  had,  in  his  own  person,  been 


TRAVIS.  55 

conscientiously  employed  in  the  vindication  of  truth.  His 
work,  indeed,  abounded  in  errors ;  but  in  errors  obvious,  for 
the  most  part,  only  to  those  who  were  tolerably  versed  in 
Scripture  criticism.  When,  for  instance,  Mr.  Travis  asserted 
tiiat  'the  Latin  MSS.  had  universally  the  concluding  clause 
of  the  eighth  verse,'  and  that '  the  words  tv  rfj  y^  were  omit- 
ted in  very  few  of  the  Greek  MSS.,'  how  small  a  portion  of 
his  readers  would  be  aware  that  these  assertions  were  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  matter  of  fact ! 

"Assertions,  moreover,  can  seldom  be  verified  without 
some  trouble ;  and  even  well-informed  persons,  who  possess 
the  means  of  investigation,  are  too  often  disposed  to  rely 
upon  an  author's  accuracy,  to  admit  his  statements,  and  go 
on  to  his  inferences,  rather  than  to  examine  the  positions 
which  are  successively  presented,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining their  real  strength  and  bearings.  On  the  whole,  then, 
there  is  no  reason  to  wonder  at  the  temporary  popularity 
which  attended  the  Letters  to  Mr.  Gibbon."  * 

From  the  extract  and  summary  I  have  given,  the  reader 
may  form  a  tolerably  correct  idea  of  the  argumentation  and 
manner  of  Archdeacon  Travis.  Never  was  an  unfortunate 
author  doomed  to  pass  such  an  ordeal,  or  to  endure  such  a 
flagellation  as  that  which  he  was  destined  to  undergo  at  the 
hands  of  Professor  Person.  His  Letters  to  Travis  first  ap- 
peared in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  1788  and  1790. 
And  in  the  last  of  these  years,  they  were  all  n^published,  to 
the  number  of  twelve,  in  an  8vo  volume,  entitled,  "  Letters 
to  Mr.  Archdeacon  Travis,  in  answer  to  his  Defence  of  the 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  1  John  v.  7."  f 

To  speak  of  the  learning,  the  talents,  and  the  wit  of  Por- 

*  Crito  Cantab.,  pp.  335-338. 

t  [Porson's  Letter."*  to  Travis,  now  a  scarce  book,  were  reprinted  in  the 
ClassicalJournal,  Vols.  XXXVI.- XXXIX.  — Ed] 


56,  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

Bon  in  this  place,  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation.  He 
was,  by  universal  suffrage,  the  most  distinguished  Grecian 
of  his  time,  and  not  less  celebrated  for  his  powers  of  satire 
and  invective,  (unhappily  too  frequently  exercised,)  than  for 
his  knowledge  of  Greek  literature.  For  the  talents  and  ac- 
quisitions of  his  opponent,  he  entertained  the  most  profound 
contempt ;  and  for  Porson  to  entertain  an  opinion,  and  to  ex- 
press it  in  all  its  strength,  was  a  thing  of  course.  The  bear- 
ing of  the  dispute  on  any  doctrine  of  Revelation  was  to  him 
a  matter  of  perfect  indifference.  How  far,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  might  be  affected  by  the  discussion, 
he  cared  nothing.  He  approached  the  controversy  with  the 
reckless  feelings  of  a  giant  called  to  crush  a  pygmy,  and  at 
once  rushed  into  the  thickest  of  the  battle,  regardless  of 
everything  but  the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose,  —  the  de- 
struction of  his  adversary,  and  the  expulsion  from  the  sacred 
text  of  the  long  disputed  passage.  Justice  requires  that  it 
should  be  said,  that  seldom  has  a  more  unsanctified  temper 
been  displayed  in  a  religious  discussion,  than  that  which  Por- 
son evinced  in  these  Letters.  The  defence  of  truth,  or  Chris- 
tianity, is  not  to  be  desired  under  such  circumstances.  So 
that  while  our  opinion  coincides  with  that  of  the  learned,  but, 
alas !  the  unhappy  Porson,  we  deplore  that  one  of  the  ablest 
pieces  of  criticism  and  argument  in  our  language  should  be 
the  production  of  one  whom  no  Christian  can  regard  as  an 
auxiliary  or  a  friend.  But  it  is  not  my  business  to  expose 
the  ashes  of  the  mighty  dead,  farther  than  to  deprecate  the 
unhallowed  association  of  impiety  with  a  professed  regard  to 
truth  and  to  the  Scriptures. 

Though  Porson  was  not  a  man  of  serious  piety,  it  is  proper 
it  should  be  stated,  that  he  was  not  a  Sociniau.  He  evidently 
cared  notliing  about  the  matter;  but  his  understanding  was 
decidedly  in  favor  of  the  orthodox  creed  on  the  subject  of 


POESON.  57 

the  Trinity.  A  friend  once  asked  him  what  he  thought  of 
the  evidence  afforded  by  the  New  Testament  in  favor  of  the 
Socinian  doctrines.  His  answer  was  short  and  decisive, — 
"  If  the  New  Testament  is  to  determine  the  question,  the 
Socinians  are  wrong."* 

In  these  celebrated  letters.  Person  discusses  Travis's  rep- 
resentations of  Valla's  Greek  MSS.,  which  he  supposed  con- 
tained the  disputed  verse,  but  whose  collation  is  shown  to 
contain  no  reference  to  it,  —  his  defence  of  the  Compluten- 
sian  Edition,  which  is  proved  to  be  unsatisfactory  and  futile, 
—  his  account  of  the  MSS.  used  by  Robert  Stephens  and 
Beza,  which  is  exhibited  as  full  of 

"Phantoms  bodiless  and  vain, 
Empty  visions  of  tiie  brain,"  — 

his  representation  of  the  MSS.  supposed  to  be  seen  by  the 
Louvaiu  divines,  and  of  the  Dublin  and  Berlin  copies,  and 
his  enumeration  of  all  the  Greek  MSS.  that  omit  the  verse, 
which  are  proved  to  be  not  less  incorrect  and  fallacious,  — 
his  account  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,' the  Syriac  and  Coptic,  the 
Arabic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Slavonic  Versions,  all  of 
which  are  shown  to  be  adverse  to  the  authenticity  of  the  wit- 
nesses, —  and  his  representations  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
writers  who  have  quoted  the  verse,  and  of  those  who,  though 
they  had  sufficient  occasion,  have  not  quoted  it. 

These  topics  must  be  regarded  as  embracing  every  materi- 
al point  in  this  interesting  and  extended  discussion.  Person 
fully  states,  and  fairly  meets  every  objection  to  his  argument, 
which  is  most  triumphantly  maintained  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  the  volume.  He  writes  like  a  man  who  felt 
convinced  of  truth  and  assured  of  victory.  He  is  often  im- 
measurably severe,  to  which  he  appears  to  have  been  pro- 
voked by  the  ignorance  and  confidence  of  his  antagonist. 

•  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XXXIII.  p.  99. 
3* 


5$  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

It  is  very  singular  that  Travis  never  took  notice  of  Por- 
son's  attack.  It  is  impossible  that  he  should  not  have  known 
it,  and  equally  impossible  that  he  should  not  have  felt  it ;  but 
whether  he  wished  his  silence  to  be  construed  into  contempt 
for  the  character  or  hatred  of  the  talents  of  his  adversary, 
cannot  now  be  determined.  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  scarcely 
possible  not  to  feel  satisfaction  in  the  success  of  Porson's  ef- 
forts, or  not  to  admire  the  undaunted  firmness  with  which  he 
meets  every  argument  and  every  objection ;  together  with 
his  disregard  of  personal  consequences,  and  his  contempt 
for  everything  like  chicane  and  subterfuge.  The  following, 
which  is  one  of  the  concluding  paragraphs  of  these  letters, 
and  which  is  supported  by  all  the  preceding  reasonings  of 
the  volume,  so  fully  determines  the  controversy,  that  unless 
it  can  be  met  and  overthrown,  all  attempts  at  supporting  the 
ver^;e  must  be  abortive. 

"  If  this  verse  be  really  genuine,  notwithstanding  its  ab- 
sence from  all  the  visible  Greek  MSS.  except  two ;  one  of 
which  awkwardly  translates  the  verse  from  the  Latin,  and 
the  other  transcribes  it  from  a  printed  book ;  notwithstand- 
ing its  absence  from  all  the  Versions  except  the  Vulgate,  and 
even  from  many  of  the  best  and  oldest  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate  ; 
notwithstanding  the  deep  and  dead  silence  of  all  the  Greek 
writers  down  to  the  thirteenth  and  most  of  the  Latins  down 
to  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  ;  —  if,  in  spite  of  all  these 
objections,  it  be  still  genuine,  no  part  of  Scripture  whatsoever 
can  be  proved  either  spurious  or  genuine ;  and  Satan  has 
been  permitted,  for  many  centuries,  miraculously  to  banish 
the  finest  passage  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  eyes  and 
memories  of  almost  all  the  Christian  authors,  translators,  and 
transcribers."  * 

The  general  style  in  which  Porson  conducts  the  contro- 
versj  is  fairly  exhibited  in  the  following  passage :  — 
*  P.  403. 


roRSON.  59 

"  Let  us  then  inquire  into  the  Greek  MSS.  supposed  to 
contain  the  disputed  verse.  You,  sir,  reckon  up  seven  be- 
longing to  Valla,  one  to  Erasmus,  some  (you  are  so  modest 
you  will  not  say,  p.  280,  how  many)  to  the  Complutensian 
editors,  sixteen  to  Robert  Stephens,  and  some  that  the  Lou- 
vain  divines  had  seen.  You  afterwards  make,  pp.  282-285, 
a  very  pretty  calculation,  (for  you  are  an  excellent  arithme- 
tician,) and  find  that  '  thirty-one  [MSS.]  out  of  eighty-one,  or 
(more  than)  three  out  of  eight,  or  (nearly)  one  half  of  that 
whole  number,  actually  did  exhibit,  or  do  exhibit,  the  verse, 
1  John  V.  7 ! '  Inquisitive  people  will  say,  how  happens  it 
that  none  of  these  MSS.  now  remain,  except  the  Dublin 
copy,  which  ^Yetstein  is  so  cruel  as  to  attribute  to  the  six- 
teenth century ;  for  concerning  the  Berlin  MS.  they  will,  I 
fear,  rather  choose  to  believe  La  Croze  and  Griesbach,  than 
Martin  and  ]\L".  Travis.  But  the  answer  is  easy.  They  are 
lost.  Either  they  have  been  burned,  or  have  been  eaten  by 
the  worms,  or  been  gnawed  in  pieces  by  the  rats,  or  been 
rotted  with  the  damps,  or  been  destroyed  by  those  pestilent 
fellows  the  Arians ;  which  was  very  feasible ;  for  they  had 
only  to  get  into  their  power  all  the  MSS.  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  world,  and  to  mutilate  or  destroy  those  which 
contained  un  dcs  plus  beaux  jjcissages  dans  VEcriture  Sainte. 
Or,  if  all  these  possibilities  should  fail,  the  Devil  may  play  his 
part  in  the  drama  to  great  advantage.  For  it  is  a  fact  of 
which  Beza  positively  assures  us,  that  the  Devil  has  been  tam- 
pering with  the  text,  1  Tim.  iii.  IG;  and  that  Erasmus  lent 
him  an  helping  hand.  Beza,  indeed,  being  a  man  brimful  of 
candor,  subjoins,  that  he  believes  Erasmus  assisted  Satan 
unwittingly.  This,  perhaps,  may  be  some  excuse  for  Eras- 
mus ;  but  what  hopes  of  salvation  are  left  for  your  Wet- 
steins,  your  Griesbachs,  your  Sosipaters,  who  have  the  front 
to  persist  in  their  damnable  errors ;  the  two  first,  in  spite  of 


60  CONTROVERSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.  7. 

350  pages  of  Berriinan ;  the  other,  in  spite  of  400  of  IVIr. 
Travis.  After  all,  I  rather  prefer  the  supposition,  that  the 
Arians  destroyed  the  said  MSS.,  because  it  shows  the  ortho- 
dox in  so  superior  a  light ;  who  have  not,  to  my  knowledge, 
at  least,  destroyed  a  single  MS.  that  omitted  their  darling 
text,  while  the  Arians,  in  less  than  a  century  and  a  half, 
suppressed  thirty  that  contained  it.  Yet  let  us  hear  what 
may  be  said  in  their  favor ;  not  out  of  tenderness  to  them 
(they  desers'e  no  mercy),  but  merely  for  our  own  justifica- 
tion." * 

"  These  letters  to  Archdeacon  Travis,"  to  use  the  words 
of  an  able  critic,  "  form  a  masterpiece  of  literary  investiga- 
tion. They  discover  a  power  of  discrimination  to  which, 
pei'haps,  a  parallel  can  be  found  only  in  the  works  of  Bent- 
ley.  A  few  inaccuracies  may  be  detected,  and  a  few  expres- 
sions brought  together  inconsistent  with  each  other ;  but  the 
decisions  with  which  the  volume  abounds,  are  founded  on 
principles  which  insure  their  stability.  Mr.  Porson  — '  uni 
cequus  virtuti  atque  ejus  amicis' — never  conceals  his  abhor- 
rence of  disingenuous  dealing  in  anything,  but  more  espe- 
cially in  matters  of  religion ;  and  he  does  not  scruple  to  call 
such  instances  of  it  as  occur  to  liim  in  his  inquiry,  by  their 
vulgar  names."  f 

Sosipater,  referred  to  in  the  above  quotation  from  Porson's 
letters,  was  a  writer  in  a  work  entitled  "  Commentaries  and 
Essays,  published  by  the  Society  for  promoting  the  Knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures."  The  first  volume  of  this  work  ap- 
peared without  date,  shortly  after  the  publication  of  Travis's 
letters,  and  contains  a  paper  by  Sosipater,  designated,  "  A 
Gleaning  of  Remarks  on  Mr.  Travis's  Attempt  to  revive 
the  exploded  Text  of  1  John  v.  7."     Its  contents  correspond 

*  Letters  to  Travis,  pp.  22  -  24. 

t  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XXXIII.  p.  99. 


STEPHENS.  61 

with  the  description,  as  they  are  literally  gleanings,  or  short 
observations  on  Emlyu  and  Martin,  and  particularly  the  mis- 
takes of  Travis,  with  some  extracts  from  Wetstein  and  Gries- 
bach.  He  concludes  by  saying,  "  I  hope  I  shall  be  excused 
in  adding  at  the  close  of  these  remarks  on  the  very  extraor- 
dinary defence  of  ihh  j ustli/  exploded  text,  that  a  more  com- 
plete pattern  of  sophistical  reasoning  throughout,  and  of  bold 
assertion  without  proof,  I  never  met  with,  and  that  if  my 
voice  could  extend  itself  to  Mr.  Gibbon,  in  his  distant  abode 
on  the  lake  Leman  ;  to  whom,  it  may  be  presumed,  a  series 
of  letters  addressed  to  him  have  been  communicated;  I  would 
entreat  that  gentleman  not  to  judge  of  his  opponents,  and  of 
all  the  defenders  of  Christianity,  by  this  its  present  champion 
and  advocate,  Mr.  Travis." 

The  work  in  which  this  paper  appeared  extended  only  to 
two  volumes.  I  believe  Dr.  Disney  was  the  conductor  of  it ; 
and  the  writers  were  mostly,  if  not  entirely,  Unitarians.  So- 
sii)ater  was  the  late  Theophilus  Lindsey,  who  wrote  a  con- 
siderable number  of  papers  under  that  signature. 

One  of  the  leading  points  in  this  discussion  relates  to  the 
readings  of  the  Greek  MSS.  employed  by  Robert  Stephens, 
in  the  construction  of  the  text  of  his  celebrated  edition  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  placing  of  the  crotchet  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Gibbon.  From  the  complicated  nature  of 
this  controversy,  and  the  numerous  minute  points  which  it 
involves,  it  is  very  difficult  to  give  an  abridged  view  of  this 
part  of  the  argument.  It  appears  that  of  the  sixteen  codi- 
ces, including  the  Complutensian,  used  by  Stej^hens,  only 
seven  contained  the  Catholic  Epistles ;  consequently  no  more 
could  be  employed  in  his  collation  of  the  disputed  verse.  In 
his  text  he  shows  the  number  of  words  omitted  in  any  of  his 
MSS.,  by  prefixing  an  obelus  f  before  the  first  word,  and  a 


62  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

little  crotchet  ),  or  semicircle,  after  the  last  word.  In  the 
disputed  text,  he  places  his  obelus  and  crotchet  as  under: 
t  fV  r«  ovpava)  6  naTTjp,  6  \6yos,  k.t.X.  By  which  he  appears  to 
intimate  tliat  not  the  whole  verse,  but  only  the  words  ev  ra 
ovpava  were  omitted  in  his  seven  MSS.  Whether  the  placing 
of  the  crotchet  in  this  position,  instead  of  the  end  of  the 
verse,  was  by  design,  or  a  mistake  of  Stephens,  or  his  com- 
positor, it  is  impossible  now  to  ascertain.  The  latter  is  by 
far  the  more  probable  supposition. 

The  friends  of  the  disputed  passage,  among  whom  must 
be  ranked,  in  particular,  Mr.  Travis,  consider  it  as  most  evi- 
dent, that  the  MSS.  employed  by  Stephens  contained  the 
passage,  and  every  possible  effort  has  been  made  to  maintain 
this  ground.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  if  the  Stephenic  MSS. 
remain,  and  can  be  identified,  they  must  furnish  the  most 
conclusive  proof  of  the  actual  reading.  And  as  Stephens 
refers  to  all  the  seven  by  one  indication,  should  even  one  of 
the  seven  be  found  and  that  not  contain  the  passage,  it  would 
be  conclusive  against  the  whole.  It  happens  that  no  Greek 
MS.,  at  present  known,  omits  only  the  three  words  to  which 
the  notation  of  the  Stephenic  text  is  limited.  Four  of  the 
seven  MSS.  employed  by  Stephens  on  the  Catholic  Epistles 
were  borrowed  from  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris,  and  re- 
turned after  being  used.  It  was  found  by  Simon,  more  than 
a  hundred  years  ago,  that  not  a  single  MS.  in  the  Royal  Li- 
brary at  Paris  contained  the  disputed  text.  And  as  four  of 
Stephens's  seven  were  included  in  those  MSS.,  though  which 
four  had  not  been  ascertained,  little  doubt  could  be  enter- 
tained of  Stephens's  mistake. 

Le  Long,  in  1720,  undertook  to  ascertain  the  four  very 
MSS.  belonging  to  the  Royal  Library  used  by  Stephens. 
He  succeeded  in  identifying  them ;  and  found  they  omitted 
the  whole  verse.     From  this  period  Stephens's  semicircle 


MARSH.  63 

was  abandoned  to  its  fate,  till  Archdeacon  Travis  took  a 
journey  to  Paris,  in  1791,  with  a  view  to  recoUate  the  MSS. 
on  which  Le  Long  had  fixed,  as  the  seven  which  were  used 
by  Stephens.  The  effect  of  his  examination  was  a  full  con- 
fidence on  his  part  that  Le  Long  had  been  mistaken  in  the 
MSS.,  that  the  crotchet  stands  in  the  proper  place  in  the  text 
of  Stephens,  and  "  that  the  calumniated  memory  of  Stephens 
would  be  redeemed  to  its  ancient  honors."  But  all  this  is  no 
better  than  idle  vaunting,  for  Travis  only  proved  himself  to 
be  totally  unfit  for  the  task  of  examining  and  collating  Greek 
MSS.,  as  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  of  the  identity  of  the 
MSS.  in  question. 

Four  of  the  seven  MSS.  used  by  Stephens,  containing  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  referred  to  by  the  mistaken  placing  of 
his  crotchet,  as  if  they  read  the  disputed  verse,  being  thus 
ascertained,  and  found  not  to  contain  it ;  during  the  interval 
of  1791  and  1794,  when  Travis's  Inst  edition  of  his  letters 
appeared,  Mr.,  now  Dr.  Marsh,  Bishop  of  Peterborough, 
thought  he  discovered  another  of  those  MSS.  in  the  Library 
of  the  University  of  Cambridge.  And  in  the  year  1793,  in 
a  note  to  the  second  volume  of  his  Translation  of  Michaelis's 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  he  intimated  this  discov- 
ery. This  MS.  had  once  belonged  to  Vatablus,  the  friend 
of  Stephens,  and  perfectly  corresponds  with  the  Codex  Ste- 
phani  ly.  This  MS.  also  omits  the  whole  of  the  disputed 
verse ;  and  thus  five  of  Stephens's  seven  MSS.,  containing 
the  Catholic  Epistles,  have  been  discovered,  and  are  found  to 
want  the  passage.  The  two  other  MSS.  have  not  yet,  I  be- 
lieve, been  found,  but  the  question,  as  to  all  the  MSS.,  must 
be  regarded  as  settled. 

This  note  of  Dr.  Marsh,  Travis  attacked  in  the  last  edition 
of  his  Letters  to  Gibbon.     Tlie  following  is  the  passage  :  — 

"In  addition  to  these  adversaries,  the  learned  translator 


64  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

of  Michaelis  has  lately  informed  the  world,  that  the  MS. 
distinguished  by  the  letters  ly  by  R.  Stephens,  is  now  in  the 
Library  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  is  there  marked 
Kk.  6.  4,  and  that  it  contains  the  Epistle  of  St.  John,  But  not 
the  verse,  1  John  v.  7.  His  argument  on  this  subject  may 
be  reduced  to  the  following  heads. 

"  1.  The  readings  which  R.  Stephens  has  produced  from 
the  MS.  ly  alone,  throughout  the  Catholic  Epistles,  amount 
to  twenty. 

"  2.  These  singular  readings  are  all  found  '  without  any 
exception,  and  without  the  least  variation'  in  his  MS.  Kk. 

"  3.  Several  of  these  singular  readings  have  been  discov- 
ered in  no  MS.  whatever  since  the  days  of  R.  Stephens. 

"  4.  This  extraordinary  coincidence,  united  with  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  MS.  Kk  has  the  name  of  a  contemporary, 
and  a  friend  of  R.  Stephens  in  it,  affords  the  strongest  proof 
that  the  MS.  now  in  question,  and  the  MS.  ty  of  R.  Stephens, 
are  one  and  the  same  book ;  and  therefore, 

"  5.  The  semicircle  of  R.  Stephens  is  misplaced. 

"  The  observations  on  this  argument,  founded  on  an  exam- 
ination of  the  Catholic  Epistles  in  this  MS.  Kk,  shall  follow 
the  order  in  which  the  several  parts  of  that  argument  are 
here  arranged. 

"  1.  On  referring  to  the  margin  of  R.  Stephens,  it  will  ap- 
pear that  he  has  quoted  his  MS.  ty  solely,  not  merely  in 
twenty,  but  in  twenty-five  places. 

"  2.  One  of  these  singular  readings,  which  is  7iot  found  in 
the  MS.  Kk,  is  in  James  v.  7,  in  which  passage  this  copy 
reads  ews  XaiSr;  Kapivov  Trpcot/xoi/  Kai  oyf/ifj-ov.  But  the  MS.  ty 
reads  the  passage  thus,  ty  eas  av  XajSr]  irpmnov  Kat  o^ipov,  with- 
out Kapnov  or  any  other  substantive.  This  may,  perhaps,  be 
one  of  those  five  passages  whicli  Mr.  Marsli  did  not  reckon. 
It  renders  his  whole  argument  ineffective,  although  the  other 


TRAVIS.  65 

twenty-four  singular  readings  should  be  (as  on  examination 
they  appear  to  be)  in  the  MS.  Kk. 

"  3.  As  to  the  assertion  that  several  of  these  singular  read- 
ings have  been  discovered  in  no  MS.  whatever  since  the  days 
of  R.  Stephens,  it  will  appear,  on  consulting  the  various  read- 
ings collected  by  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  Griesbach,  that  the  case 
stands  thus,  or  nearly  thus.  Of  the  twenty-four  singular 
readings  in  which  the  ]MS.  ly  and  Kk  agree,  twelve  have 
been  discovered  in  other  Greek  MSS.,  six  more  have  been 
found  in  some  of  the  oldest  versions,  and  one  more  in  Cyril 
of  Alexandria ;  so  that  there  are  only  five  singular  readings 
which  have  not  yet  been  found  any  where  except  in  the 
MSS.  Kk  and  ty. 

"  4.  Mr.  Marsh  infers  from  this  extraordinary  coincidence, 
(a  coincidence  of  twelve  readings,)  and  from  the  word  Vata- 
blus  being  written  in  the  MS.  Kk,  that  it  must  be  the  MS.  ty 
of  R.  Stephens.  It  will  instantly  appear  how  insignificant 
the  latter  circumstance  is.  And  with  regai'd  to  the  former, 
if  it  be  a  just  inference  that  two  MSS.  are  the  same  because 
they  agree  in  a  certain  number  of  passages,  where  they  devi- 
ate from  all  other  copies ;  it  is  surely  reasonable  to  conclude, 
that  if  one  of  two  given  MSS.  sliall  disagree,  not  only  with 
the  other,  but  also  with  the  rest  of  the  MSS.  which  have 
hitherto  been  collated,  in  a  far  greater  number  of  passages, 
they  must  be  two  different  MSS. 

"In  the  ]\IS.  Kk,  there  are  in  all  135  deviations  from  the 
text  of  R.  Stepliens,  each  of  them  not  less  important  than 
those  which  he  has  produced  from  his  MS.  ty.  In  his  mar- 
gin the  MS.  ly  is  quoted  only  GO  times.  There  are  in  the 
MvS.  Kk,  therefore,  75  more  various  readings  than  R.  Ste- 
phens has  produced  from  the  jMS.  ty. 

"  Among  the  135  readings,  just  mentioned,  there  are  42 
which  are  not  to  be  met  with,  either  in  the  margin  of  R. 

B 


66  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

Stephens,  or  in  the  various  readings  of  Mill,  of  Wetstein,  or 
of  Griesbach ;  that  is,  there  are  42  passages  wherein  the  MS. 
Kk  differs,  not  only  from  the  MS.  ty,  (as  the  fair  presumption 
is,)  but  from  every  other  known  MS.  But  there  are  twelve 
places  alone  in  which  the  MS.  vy  is  known  to  agree  with  the 
MS.  Kk,  and  to  differ  from  every  other  copy.  From  all 
which  facts  and  circumstances  taken  together,  it  appears 
most  probable  that  the  copies  now  in  question  are  two  differ- 
ent MSS.     And  therefore  that 

"  5.  Mr.  Marsh's  argument  does  not  shew  that  the  semi- 
circle of  R.  Stephens  is  misplaced. 

"  It  will  not  be  too  strong  an  observation  to  remark,  that 
such  accusations  tarnish  not  his  well-earned  honors.  They 
prove  nothing  — -  but  the  precipitancy  of  his  accusers."  * 

It  was  in  defence  of  his  note,  therefore,  and  in  farther  sup- 
port of  his  own  views,  and  those  of  Michaelis,t  on  1  John  v. 
7,  that  this  learned  writer  published  at  Leipsie,  where  he  was 
then  residing,  the  following  able  volume ;  "  Letters  to  Mr. 
Archdeacon  Travis,  in  Vindication  of  one  of  the  Translator's 
Notes  to  Michaelis's  Introduction,  and  in  confirmation  of  the 
opinion  that  a  Greek  MS.  now  preserved  in  the  Public  Li- 
brary of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  is  one  of  the  seven 
which  are  quoted  by  R.  Stephens,  at  1  John  v.  7.  With  an 
Appendix,  containing  a  Review  of  Mr.  Travis's  Collation  of 
the  Greek  MSS.  which  he  examined  in  Paris ;  an  Extract 
from  Mr.  Pappelbaum's  Treatise  on  the  Berlin  MS. ;  and 

*  Travis's  Letters,  pp.  410-414. 

t  Mr.  Butler,  by  mistake,  represents  Michaelis  as  at  first  an  advocate 
for  the  disputed  verse,  and  refers  to  a  book,  by  him,  on  that  side  of  the 
question,  and  to  another  also  in  opposition  to  it.  —  Horse  Biblicas,  Vol.  I.  p. 
379.  What  he  affirms  of  Michaelis,  belongs  to  Semler,  who  changed  his 
views,  and  wrote  both  the  works  which  Mr.  Butler  ascribes  to  Michaelis. — 
See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  VI.  p.  413. 


MARSH.  67 

an  Essay  on  the  Origin  and  Object  of  the  Velesian  Read- 
ings."    8vo.  1795. 

These  letters,  seven  in  number,  with  the  appendices,  sup- 
plied everything  that  was  wanting  to  complete  the  discomfit- 
ure and  disgrace  of  the  unfortunate  Archdeacon.  They  de- 
prive him  not  only  of  every  shadow  of  argument,  but  clearly 
prove  that  he  resorted  to  artifice  to  support  the  cause  he  had 
rashly  undertaken  to  defend.  It  is  impossible  to  convey  an 
idea  of  the  labor,  research,  and  learning,  which  this  admira- 
ble volume  displays.  It  is  worth  being  consulted  as  an  ex- 
ercise of  the  understanding,  and  of  being  referred  to  as  a 
specimen  of  the  most  admirably  sustained  argumentation. 
The  main  positions  are  established  by  a  superfluity  of  proof, 
60  that  the  reader  has  no  option  but  to  adopt  the  conclusion 
respecting  the  identity  of  the  MSS.,  the  misplacing  of  the 
crotchet,  and  consequently  that  none  of  the  MSS.  used  by 
Stephens  really  contained  this  passage.  On  every  point,  in- 
deed, involved  in  this  discussion,  much  curious  and  accurate 
information  is  communicated,  so  that  the  reader  will  find  it 
one  of  the  most  valuable  works  in  the  whole  range  of  bibli- 
cal criticism.  One  of  the  most  curious  applications  of  math- 
ematical science  to  moral  evidence  is  contained  in  this  work. 
By  the  application  of  a  mathematical  theorem,  in  the  fourth 
letter,  to  the  documents  produced  in  the  second  and  fifth  let- 
ters, the  learned  writer  endeavors  to  show  that  the  probability 
in  favor  of  the  MS.  Kk.  6.  4,  in  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
being  one  of  the  MSS.  collated  by  Stephens,  is,  to  the  prob- 
ability of  the  contrary,  as  two  nonillions  to  unity.  This  he 
conceives,  if  the  calculation  be  correct,  every  one  will  con- 
sider as  amounting  to  a  moral  certainty. 

Various  opinions  may  be  entertained  respecting  the  pro- 
priety of  applying  mathematical  science  to  such  subjects ; 
and  also  respecting  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  algebraic  for- 


68  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

mula  on  which  he  reasons ;  but  only  one  opinion  can  exist 
respecting  the  point  to  which  it  is  applied.  Dr.  Marsh's  ac- 
count of  the  steps  by  which  he  was  led  to  the  result  at  which 
be  finally  arrived,  is  singularly  interesting,  and  though  long, 
as  it  affords  a  beautiful  specimen  of  critical  caution  and  acu- 
men, and  as  the  volume  is  now  scarcely  to  be  procured  at  any 
price,  the  reader,  I  am  sure,  will  be  pleased  to  be  furnished 
with  it. 

"In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1793,  while  I  was  printing 
my  Notes  to  the  second  volume  of  Michaelis's  Introduction, 
I  examined  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  pre- 
served in  the  University  Library,  of  which  I  had  made  a 
catalogue  in  the  preceding  summer.  My  attention  was  par- 
ticularly engaged  by  that  which  was  marked  Kk.  6.  4.:  a 
manuscript  containing  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  with  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  those  of  St.  Paul.  I  found,  on  exam- 
ination, tliat  it  bore  the  appearance  of  a  very  respectable  an- 
tifjuity,  that  its  readings  were  in  numerous  examples  differ- 
ent from  the  common  printed  text,  where  the  deviations  were 
supported  by  very  few  other  authorities,  and  I  was  surprised 
that  so  remarkable  a  manuscript  should,  as  I  at  that  time 
supposed,  have  remained  uncollated.  Considering,  however, 
that  manuscripts,  after  the  death  of  their  proprietors,  are  fre- 
quently transferred  to  different  libraries,  and  sometimes  even 
to  distant  countries,  I  thought  it  not  improbable  that  this 
manuscript,  though  never  quoted  as  a  Codex  Cantabrigiensis, 
might  have  been  collated  and  quoted  by  a  different  name  be- 
fore it  was  purchased  for  the  University  Library,  in  the  same 
manner  as  tlie  Codex  Augiensis,  now  in  Trinity  College,  was 
in  the  beginning  of  this  century  collated  by  Wetstein,  in  the 
library  of  Mr.  INIieg  at  Heidelberg.  And  that  the  very  same 
thing  had  really  happened  to  the  MS.  Kk.  6.  4.,  I  was  led  to 
conclude  by  the  following  circumstances.     In  the  first  place 


MARSH.  69 

I  observed  the  name  of  Vatablus  (who  was  Hebrew  Profes- 
sor in  the  University  of  Paris,  and  died  about  the  middle  of 
the  sixteenth  century)  written  on  the  inside  of  the  cover,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  manuscript,  in  a  place  where  the  pro- 
prietors of  books  very  frequently  write  their  names.  The 
same  name  I  saw  likewise  at  the  end  of  the  manuscript,  and 
observed  that  in  both  places  the  name  was  written  in  the 
middle  of  the  page,  and  in  the  same  hand.  I  perceived  like- 
wise the  name  of  Hautin  written  at  the  beginning  of  the 
manuscript,  in  the  same  page  with  the  name  of  Vatablus,  but 
in  a  different  hand,  and  in  a  different  part  of  the  page,  name- 
ly, in  one  of  the  upper  corners,  which  is  likewise  a  place 
where  the  proprietors  of  books  very  frequently  write  their 
names.  I  concluded  therefore  that  the  manuscript  had  been 
formerly  in  France,  and  successively  the  property  of  Vata- 
blus and  Hautin.  I  paid,  however,  little  attention  to  the 
name  of  Hautin :  it  was  that  of  Vatablus  which  led  me  to 
further  inquiries,  and  first  excited  the  suspicion  that  this 
manuscript  might  have  been  one  of  those  which  were  used 
by  R.  Stephens  for  his  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
printed  in  1546,  1549,  and  1550,  because  Vatablus  was  one 
of  Robert  Stephens's  intimate  friends,  and  was  likewise  con- 
nected with  him  in  his  literary  pursuits.  Under  these  circum- 
stances I  thought  it  impossible  that  an  ancient  and  valuable 
manuscript,  in  the  possession  of  Vatablus,  could  have  been 
unknown  to  Stephens :  and,  as  he  expressly  declares  in  the 
preface  to  his  edition  of  1550,  that  he  procured  six  manu- 
scripts from  various  quarters,  in  addition  to  the  eight  bor- 
rowed from  the  Royal  Library  (which  with  the  Complutensian 
edition  and  tlie  manuscript  collated  in  Italy  make  up  the  six- 
teen), it  appeared  to  me  at  least  probable,  that  the  Codex 
Vatabli  was  one  of  the  six.  Further,  this  probability  was 
greatly  increased  by  the  strong  expression  which  Stephens 


70  CONTEOVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

has  nsed  in  speaking  of  these  six  manuscripts,  for  he  says 
that  they  were  'ea,  quas  undique  corrogare  licuit.'  The 
word  'undique'  plainly  denotes  that  he  collected  from  various 
quarters;  and  the  addition  of  'licuit'  is  a  proof  that  he  col- 
lected at  least  such  as  he  thought  worthy  of  notice,  where  he 
was  able  to  procure  them. 

"  Having  thus  considered  the  probability,  that  «the  Codex 
Vatabli  had  been  used  by  Stephens,  derived  from  external 
evidence,  I  proceeded  to  inquire  what  internal  evidence  might 
be  obtained  in  its  favor.  For  this  purpose,  it  was  necessary 
to  fix  upon  some  one  of  Stephens's  manuscripts,  and  compare 
the  readings  which  Stephens  had  quoted  from  it,  with  the 
readings  of  the  Codex  Vatabli :  and  I  was  led  to  fix  on  one 
of  the  two  marked  la  and  ty,  in  the  following  manner.  I 
considered  that  if  the  Codex  Vatabli  had  been  used  by  Ste- 
phens, it  must  be  one  of  the  six  'qute  undique  corrogare 
licuit';  for,  independently  of  the  arguments  already  adduced 
to  show  that  it  probably  was  one  of  those  six,  it  could  neither 
be  the  Codex  a  nor  /3,  for  reasons  which  it  would  be  super- 
fluous to  mention :  neither  could  it  be  one  of  the  eight  man- 
uscripts marked  by  Stephens,  y,  8,  t,  r,  f,  r],  i,  le,  for  these 
eight,  as  he  himself  declares,  were  borrowed  from  the  Royal 
Library.  If  used  at  all,  therefore,  it  could  be  only  one  of 
the  six  which  Stephens  has  noted  by  6,  la,  i^,  ty,  i8,  tr.  But 
it  could  neither  be  the  6,  nor  the  t/3,  nor  the  tS ;  for  the  two 
first  of  these  have  been  discovered  by  Wetstein  to  be  the 
same  as  the  Codex  Coislinianus  200,  and  the  Codex  Regius 
83 ;  and  the  third  has  been  found  by  Griesbach  to  be  the 
Codex  Victorinus  774.  The  number  therefore  of  the  undis- 
covered Codices  Stephanici  were  reduced  to  the  three  marked 
la,  »y,  tr :  but  the  Codex  tr  is  quoted  by  Stephens  above  fifty 
times  in  the  Apocalypse,  a  book  which  is  not  contained  in  the 
Codex  Vatabli.     There  remained  therefore  for  trial  only  the 


MARSH.  71 

ta  and  the  ly,  both  of  which,  as  appears  from  the  quotations 
in  Stephens's  margin,  contained  the  very  same  books  as  the 
Codex  Yatabli,  namely,  tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Catho- 
lic Epistles,  and  those  of  St.  Paul. 

"  Having  discovered  so  far,  that  one  of  these  two  manu- 
scripts might  be  the  Codex  Vatabli,  I  resolved  further  to 
examine  whether  either  of  them  actually  ivcre.  To  this  end 
I  copied  from  Stephens's  margin,  throughout  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  (which  I  thought  a  sufficient  portion  for  determin- 
ing the  question,  without  going  also  through  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,)  all  the  singular 
readings  of  the  two  MSS.  ta  and  ty,  or,  in  other  words,  such 
as  Stephens  had  quoted  fi'om  each  of  these  manuscripts 
solely.  Those  of  the  former  amounted  to  twenty,  those  of 
the  latter  to  twenty-five.  Having  formed  in  this  manner, 
from  Stephens's  margin,  two  separate  catalogues  of  the  char- 
acteristic readings  of  these  two  manuscripts,  I  went  into  the 
Public  Library  to  compare  them  with  the  Codex  Vatabli : 
and  in  case  I  found  that  this  manuscript  contained  the  whole 
series  of  characteristic  readings,  either  of  the  Codex  ta,  or 
of  the  Codex  ty,  —  all  proper  allowances  being  made  for 
typographical  errors,  from  which  Stephens's  margin  is  by  no 
means  free,  —  I  thought  I  should  be  justified  in  concluding 
that  I  had  discovered  one  of  the  manuscripts  of  Robert  Ste- 
phens, which  had  been  buried  in  oblivion  since  the  middle  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  first  trial  which  I  made,  was 
with  the  characteristic  readings  of  the  Codex  ta :  but  I  soon 
perceived  that  this  could  not  be  the  manuscript,  for  not  one 
of  its  characteristic  readings,  as  far  as  I  compared,  was  to  be 
found  in  the  Codex  Vatabli.  My  last  resource  therefore  was 
the  Codex  ty,  and  if  the  internal  evidence  had  there  likewise 
been  as  unfavorable  as  to  the  Codex  la,  I  must  have  aban- 
doned the  opinion  that  the  Codex  Vatabli  had  been  used  by 


72  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

Stephens,  notwithstanding  the  external  evidence  in  its  favor. 
But  to  my  great  surprise,  and  I  acknowledge  to  mj  great 
satisfaction,  I  found  in  the  Codex  Vatabli  all  the  singular 
readings  of  the  Codex  ly,  throughout  the  Catholic  Epistles ; 
which  is  really  more  than  I  should  have  expected,  even  had 
I  known  for  certain  before  I  made  the  comparison,  that  the 
Codex  Vatabli  was  the  very  manuscript  which  Stephens  de- 
noted by  the  mark  tyj  since  among  twenty-five  readings  in 
Stephens's  margin,  taken  any  where  at  a  venture,  we  may 
in  general  expect  to  find  at  least  one  error,  either  of  the 
collator,  or  of  the  printer.  This  extraordinary  coincidence, 
therefore,  between  the  characteristic  readings  of  the  Codex 
ty  and  those  of  the  Codex  Vatabli,  united  with  the  external 
evidence  derived  from  the  manuscript's  having  been  the 
property  of  one  of  Stephens's  intimate  friends,  afforded,  as  I 
thought,  and  as  I  still  think,  a  very  satisfactory  proof  of  their 
identity.  Further,  upon  consulting  the  editions  of  Mill, 
Wetstein,  and  Griesbach,  I  found,  1st,  that  of  the  twenty-five 
singular  readings  of  the  Codex  ty,  no  manuscript  at  present 
knowm,  beside  the  Codex  Vatabli,  contains  even  a  sixth  part; 
2dly,  that  if  we  except  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  which  contains 
four  of  them,  and  four  only,  there  is  no  single  manuscript  at 
present  known  which  contains  any  two  of  them ;  and  3dly, 
that  all  the  manuscripts  put  together,  which  have  been  colla- 
ted by  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  Griesbach  (to  whom,  as  I  have 
since  learnt,  may  be  added  Matthiii  and  Alter),  contain  only 
two  fifths  of  them.  Whether  under  these  circumstances  I 
rightly  concluded,  that  if  any  one  manuscript  was  found  to 
contain  them  all,  it  could  be  no  other  than  the  very  manu- 
script from  which  they  had  been  taken,  or  whether  the  infer- 
ence was  made  with  that  '  precipitancy '  of  which  you  have 
thought  proper  to  accuse  me,  I  leave  to  be  determined  by 
those  who  are  competent  judges."  * 

*  Marsh's  Letters,  pp.  3-9. 


MARSH.  73 

The  following  passage  will  show  his  views  and  feelings  re- 
specting the  moral  and  intellectual  qualities  of  his  antagonist. 

"Here  I  would  willingly  close  this  subject;  but  as  you, 
yourself,  are  so  extremely  liberal  of  censure,  even  in  cases 
where  you  ought  I'ather  to  applaud,  you  must  not  expect 
to  escape,  where  censure  is  justly  due.  The  expression, 
*  shameful  debility,'  which  you  apply  to  Le  Long,  Wetstein, 
and  Griesbach,  might  be  retorted,  not  four  but  fourscore  fold 
upon  yourself;  for  of  an  hundred  examples  which  you  have 
produced,  pp.  220-241,  and  which  have  been  the  subject  of 
the  preceding  inquiry,  there  are  more  than  seventy  which 
are  either  false,  or  prove  nothing,  or  prove  against  yourself. 
When  I  find  you  arguing  from  Stephens's  silence,  and  con- 
cluding that  his  MSS.  agreed  with  his  text,  wherever  he  has 
not  specified  the  contrary,  or  when  I  see  you  gravely  copying 
Stephens's  own  words,  and  producing  them  as  various  read- 
ings of  a  Greek  MS.,  I  have  no  other  sensation  than  that  of 
pity  for  a  man,  who  has  imprudently  engaged  in  sacred  criti- 
cism, without  possessing  the  necessary  qualifications.  But 
when  I  meet  with  assertions  that  cannot  be  ascribed  to  want 
of  knowledge ;  when  I  find  you  quoting  Stephens  for  evi- 
dence which  he  has  not  given,  and  suppressing  that  which 
he  really  has,  and  consider  that  there  are  instances  of  the 
former  kind,  in  which  you  could  hardly  have  been  taken  by 
surprise,  and  examples  of  the  latter,  in  which  you  neither 
could  have  been  ignorant  of  what  Stephens  had  quoted,  nor 
of  the  impossibility  of  concealing  that  quotation,  without 
leading  your  readers  into  error,  it  is  really  difficult  to  avoid 
giving  way  to  the  feelings  of  a  just  indignation."  * 

This  volume  may  be  considered  as  concluding  the  direct 
controversy  occasioned   by  Gibbon's   attack.     Travis   never  , 
returned  to  the  charge.    He  died  about  this  time,  not  without 

•  Pp.  238-240. 


74  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

a  suspicion  that  the  controversy  severely  affected  his  health, 
and  contributed  to  shorten  his  days. 

In  1801,  Dr.  Marsh  published  the  second  part  of  the  trans- 
lation of  Michaelis's  Introduction.  The  last  volume  of  this 
work  contains  a  Dissertation  of  that  learned  German  on  the 
jDassage  in  question ;  in  which,  among  other  tilings,  he  gives 
a  short  account  of  what  had  been  published  in  German)"-, 
in  defence  of  the  passage,  subsequently  to  1750,  the  year  in 
which  the  lirst  edition  of  his  Introduction  appeared,  and  in 
which  he  had  expressed  his  opinion  that  the  passage  was 
spurious. 

"  The  first  is  a  thesis  written  for  a  public  disputation  by 
Dr.  Semler,  at  Ilalle,  in  1751,  entitled,  '  Vindicite  plurium 
prajcipuarum  lectionum  codicis  Gra;ci  Novi  Testamenti,  ad- 
versus  Whistonum,  atque  ab  eo  latas  leges  criticas.'  This 
tract  eminently  distinguishes  itself  from  the  rest  by  its  i^ro- 
found  learning,  and  great  moderation.  It  would  be  super- 
fluous to  make  any  reply  to  it  at  present,  because  the  learned 
author  himself,  who  soon  after  altered  his  oiDinion,  not  only 
confuted  all  the  arguments  which  had  been  used  in  favor  of 
1  John  V.  7,  but  wrote  the  most  important  work  which  we 
have  on  this  subject.* 

4  "  The  next  defence  of  1  John  v.  7  was  written  by  Mr.  J. 
E.  "Wagner,  in  1752,  and  entitled  '  Integritas  commatis  septi- 
mi  capitis  quinti  primaj  Joannis  epistola?  ab  impugnationibus 
novatoris  cujusdam  denuo  vindicata.'  This  treatise  was  di- 
rected particularly  against  mc,  whom  the  author  meant  by 

*  [The  work  referretl  to  bears  the  followhig  title:  — "  Historische  uiid 
kritische  SainmluiigQn  iiber  die  so  genauiiten  Beweisstellcn  in  der  Dogmatik. 
Erstes  Stiick.  Uber  1  Joh.  5,  7."  I.  e.  Historical  and  Critical  Collections 
relating  to  the  so-called  Proof-texts  in  Dogmatic  Theology.  Part  I.  On 
1  John  V.  7.  Hallo  und  Helmstiidt,  1764,  8vo.  pp.  20,  429,  besides  Index.— 
Part  II.,  which  I  have  not  seen,  appeared  in  1768.  —  Ed.] 


WAGNEE,  KNITTEL,  STRESOW,  MICHAELIS.  75 

his  'novator  quidam.'  But  with  such  an  adversary  as  Mr. 
Wagner  I  never  could  persuade  myself  to  enter  into  any 
controversy. 

^j  "  After  a  lapse  of  above  thirty  years,  the  learned  Knittel 
undertook  another  defence  of  the  disputed  passage  in  his 
'  New  Criticisms  on  1  John  v.  7,'  printed  at  Brunswick,  in 
1785.  This  is  a  valuable  work,  and  much  useful  information 
may  be  derived  from  it ;  but  in  the  proof  of  the  principal 
point  the  autlior  has  totally  failed. 

>/  "  In  the  same  year,  Mr.  Travis  published  in  London  his 
'  Letters  to  Gibbon ' ;  and  in  the  year  following,  Mr.  Stresow 
printed  at  Hamburgh  his  '  Open  Avowal  of  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  as  delivered  in  1  John  v.  7.'  But  both  of  these 
publications  betrayed  the  utmost  partiality  and  ignorance."  * 

The  greatest  part  of  Michaelis's  dissertation  is  occupied 
in  combating  the  ground  on  which  Bengel  had  rested  the 
defence  of  the  text,  which  is  done  in  a  very  masterly  and 
convincing  manner.  The  sixth  section  is  occupied  with  IVIi- 
chaelis's  view  of  the  maimer  in  which  the  passage  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Latin  copies,  from  which  little  doubt  can  be 
entertained  it  was  afterwards  translated  into  Greek,  and  thus 
obtained  possession,  first  of  one  Greek  MS.,  and  then  of  the 
Complutensian  Edition.  As  the  section  is  short,  I  shall  give 
it  entire. 

"  When  it  has  been  proved,  by  satisfactory  evidence,  that  a 
passage  is  spurious,  it  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  show  at  what 
time  or  in  what  manner  the  passage  was  first  introduced. 
There  are  many  readings  in  our  common  printed  text,  which, 
at  present,  are  universally  allowed  to  be  false,  though  we 
cannot  ascertain  by  what  copyist  they  were  first  written, 
or  what  particular  cause  lias  given  them  birth.  In  such 
cases  we  must  be  satisfied  with  probable  conjecture ;  for  his- 

*  Marsh's  Micluielis,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  -113,  414. 


76  CONTROVEESY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

torical  evidence  is  seldom  to  be  expected,  since  interpolations 
are  in  general  clandestine  facts,  and  are  very  rarely  recorded, 
liut  since  the  advocates  of  1  John  v.  7  contend  that  this  pas- 
sage would  not  have  been  contained  in  the  Latin  version 
unless  it  had  been  contained  likewise  in  the  Greek,  I  will  en- 
deavor to  show  in  what  manner  it  was  first  introduced  into 
the  Latin  version. 

"  The  simple  fact,  that  it  had  its  origin  in  the  Latin,  is  in- 
disputable, since  it  is  contained  in  no  ancient  Greek  manu- 
script, and  in  no  other  version.  And  the  cause  which  gave  it 
birth  was  probably  the  following :  It  appears  from  the  third 
section  of  this  chapter,  that  the  African  fathers  interpreted 
1  John  V.  8  mystically,  and  considered  '  the  spirit,  the  water, 
and  the  blood,'  as  denoting  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Further  it  must  be  remarked,  that  the  Afri- 
can fathers  were  the  first  who  discovered  1  John  v.  7  in  the 
Latin  version.  The  combination  of  these  two  facts  leads  to 
the  following  probable  conclusion ;  that  the  spiritual  inter- 
pretation of  1  John  V.  8  was  written  in  the  margin  of  one  or 
more  Latin  manuscripts,  and  that  in  order  to  distinguish  the 
terrestrial  from  the  celestial  meaning,  the  words  'in  terra' 
were  added  as  a  marginal  gloss,  in  reference  to  '  testimonium 
dant'  in  the  eighth  verse,  by  which  means  both  the  literal 
and  the  spiritual  meaning  w^ere  rendered  perfect.  According 
to  this  representation  the  text  and  the  margin  stood  thus :  — 


*  in  terra. 

Et  tres  sunt,  qui  testimonium  dant 
in  coclo,  I'ater,  Verbura,  et  Spiritus 
Sanctus:  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt. 


"  Quoniam  tres  sunt,  qui 
testimonium  dant,*  spiritus,  et 
aqua,  et  sanguis :  et  hi  tres 
unum  sunt." 


When  a  copy  of  this  kind  fell  into  the  hands  of  ignorant 
transcribers,  who  were  making  new  transcripts  of  the  Latin 
Bible,  they  imagined  that  what  was  written  in  the  margin 
was  a  part  of  the  text,  which  had  been  omitted  by  mistake ; 


MICHAELIS.  77 

consequently  they  inserted  it  in  the  text  of  the  manuscript 
which  they  themselves  were  writing.  But  some  of  them  in- 
serted the  marginal  reading  before  the  text,  of  which  it  was 
the  interpretation,  others  after  it ;  and  this  is  the  reason  why 
the  controverted  passage  has  no  fixed  place  in  the  Latin  man- 
uscripts,—  the  heavenly  witnesses  sometimes  preceding,  some- 
times following  the  earthly  witnesses. 

"  In  this  manner  the  passage  having  gained  admittance  in- 
to one  or  more  Latin  manuscripts  written  in  Africa,  it  had 
the  undeserved  good  fortune  to  be  quoted  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  presented  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  by  the  Af- 
rican bishops  to  Huneric,  king  of  the  Vandals.  And  as  these 
bishops  became  martyrs,  and  were  said  even  to  have  per- 
formed a  miracle,  the  passage,  in  consequence  of  its  having 
been  quoted  in  their  Confession,  not  only  acquired  celebrity, 
but  was  stamped  with  authorit3\  Hence  other  Latin  tran- 
scribers, especially  they  who  lived  in  Africa,  were  induced  to 
follow  the  example  of  those  who  transferred  the  passage  from 
the  margin  to  the  text.  And,  as  the  Carthaginian  and  Ro- 
man churches  were  closely  allied,  this  example  soon  spread 
itself  to  the  transcribers  who  lived  in  Italy.  It  must  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  the  example  was  not  imitated  univer- 
sally ;  for  Facundus,  Avho  lived  in  the  sixth  century,  did  not 
find  the  passage  in  his  manusci'ipt  of  the  Latin  version.  This 
appears  from  the  circumstance  that  he  proves  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  by  a  mystical  interpretation  of  the  eighth  verse; 
which  he  certainly  would  not  have  done  if  the  seventh  verse 
had  been  contained  in  his  manuscript,  because  in  this  verse 
the  doctrine  which  he  intended  to  prove  is  literally  and  di- 
rectly asserted.  After  tlie  sixth  century  the  whole  Latin 
Church  Avas  involved  in  ignorance  and  barbarism;  all  critical 
inquiries  were  at  an  end ;  and  both  spurious  and  genuine  pas- 
sages were  received  without  distinction.    In  the  Middle  Ages, 


78  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

therefore,  1  John  v.  7  was  generally  considered  throughout  the 
"West  of  Europe  as  a  part  of  St.  John's  first  Epistle,  without 
any  further  questions  being  asked  about  it."  * 

Such  is  the  decided  ojjinion  of  one  of  the  most  learned, 
candid,  and  ingenious  critics  which  Germany  ever  produced, 
of  the  spuriousness  of  this  passage,  and  of  the  metliod  in 
which  it  crept  into  the  text.  His  explanation  is  not  founded 
on  mere  conjecture  or  hypothesis,  but  on  circumstances  be- 
longing to  the  state  of  the  Latin  MSS.  which  strongly  sup- 
port the  view  which  he  has  given. 

In  1807,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  published  his  useful  work, 
"The  Succession  of  Sacred  Literature";!  to  wliich  he  pre- 
fixes two  fac-similes  of  the  disputed  passage;  one  taken  from 
the  Complutensian  Edition  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
other  from  the  Codex  Montfortii  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin. 
In  treating  on  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  he  makes  some  ju- 
dicious observations  on  the  text  of  the  three  witnesses,  in 
order  to  illustrate  his  plates.  After  stating  his  opinion  of 
the  age  of  the  Codex  Montfortianus,  Avhich  has  been  already 
given,  he  proceeds  as  follows:  — 

"  Though  a  conscientious  advocate  for  tlie  sacred  doctrine 
contained  in  the  disputed  text,  and  which  I  think  expressly 
enough  revealed  in  several  other  parts  of  the  sacred  writings, 
yet  I  must  own  the  passage  in  question  stands  on  a  most  du- 
bious foundation.  All  the  Greek  manuscripts  (the  Codex 
Montfortii  alone  excepted)  omit  the  passage :  so  do  all  the 
ancient  versions,  the  Vulgate  excepted :  but  in  many  of  the 
ancient  MSS.  even  of  this  version  it  is  wanting.  There  is 
one  in  the  British  Museum,  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century, 
where  it  is  added  by  a  more  recent  hand  in  the  margin :  for 

*  Pp.  434-437. 

t  [A  second  edition,  enlarged,  was  published  in  1831.  — Ed.] 


CLARKE.  79 

it  is  wanting  also  in  the  text.  It  is  also  variously  written  in 
those  manuscripts  which  retain  it.  Tiiis  will  appear  more 
plainly  by  comi-aring  the  following  extracts,  taken  from  four 
manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  in  my  own  possession :  — 

"  1.  Quoniain  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  coclo  Pater, 
Verbum  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  et  hii  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres 
sunt  qui  tfstimonium  dant  in  terra,  Spiritus,  Sanguis  et  Aqua. 

"  2.  Quoiiiura  tres  sunt  qui  tesliinouium  dant  in  terra, 
Spiritus,  Aqua  et  Sanguis,  et  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres  sunt 
qui  testimonium  dant  in  coclo  Pater  Verbum  et  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus, et  hii  tres  unum  sunt. 

"  3.  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  coelo,  Pater, 
et  Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  hii  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra,  Spiritus,  Aqua  et  Sanguis. 

"  4.  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra,  spiri- 
tus, aqua  et  sanguis;  et  hii  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres  sunt  qui 
testimonium  dant  in  Cajlo,  Pater  et  Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus, 
et  hii  tres  unum  sunt. 

"  5.  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  Testimonium  dant  in  terra 
S[)iritus,  Aqua  et  Sanguis,  et  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  per- 
hibent  in  Coelo  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  et  hi  tres 
unum  sunt. 

"  This  last  I  took  from  an  ancient  manuscript  in  Marsh's 
Library,  St.  Patrick's,  Dublin. 

"In  the  Bible  printed  by  Fradin  and  Pinard,  Paris,  1497, 
fol.,  the  text  is  the  same  with  No.  2,  only  instead  of  testimo- 
tiium  dant,  it  reads  dant  testimonium. 

"  The  reader  will  observe,  that  in  No.  2,  4,  and  5,  the 
eighth  verse  is  put  before  the  seventh,  and  that  3  and  4  have 
fdius  instead  ol'  verbum.  But  both  these  readings  are  united 
in  an  ancient  English  manuscript  of  my  own,  wliich  contains 
the  Bible  from  the  beginning  of  Proverbs  to  the  end  of  the 
New  Testament,  written  on  thick  strong  vellum,  and  evident- 
ly  prior  to  the  time  of  WiclifF. 


80  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

"JFor  tfjvcc  ben  tijat  gcfacit  ioitncssintj  in  f)cbcit  tfje  jFatitr,  tfje 
SUSiovti  or  Sonc  anti  tijc  lijaolu  Goost,  nnti  tfjcse  tljut  brn  oon. 
Qnii  tljrcc  bcu  tljat  gcbcn  iottnrsstng  in  ertfje,  tfjc  Spirit,  5i2Eater, 
antf  33lD0ti,  antr  tfjcsc  tljrrt  iicn  oon. 

"  As  many  suppose  the  Complutensian  editors  must  have 
had  a  manuscript  or  manuscripts  which  contained  this  dispu- 
ted passage,  I  judge  it  necessary  to  add  the  note  which  they 
subjoin  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  by  which  (though  nothing 
is  clearly  expressed)  it  appears  they  either  had  such  a  manu- 
script, or  wished  to  have  it  thought  they  had  such.  However, 
the  note  is  curious,  and  shows  us  how  this  disputed  passage 
was  read  in  the  most  approved  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate 
extant  in  the  thirteenth  century,  when  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
wrote,  from  whom  this  note  is  taken. 

"  The  following  is  the  whole  note  literatim :  — 
" '  Sanctus  Thomas  in  expositione  secunde  Decretalis  de 
suma  Trinitate  et  fide  catholica  tractans  istum  passum  contra 
Abbatem  Joachim  ut  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  celo. 
Pater :  Verbum  :  et  Spii-itus  Sanctus  :  dicit  ad  litteram  verba 
sequentia.  Et  ad  insinuandam  unitatem  trium  personarum 
subditur,  Et  hii  tres  unum  sunt.  Quodquidem  dicitur  prop- 
ter essentie  unitatem.  Sed  hoc  Joachim  perverse  trahere 
volens  ad  unitatem  charitatis  et  consensus  inducebat  conse- 
quentem  auctoritatem.  Nam  subditur  ibidem :  Et  tres  sunt 
qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra,  s.  Spiritus :  Aqua:  et  San- 
guis. Et  in  quibusdam  libris  additur:  Et  hii  tres  unum  sunt. 
Sed  hoc  in  veris  exemplaribus  non  habetur :  sed  dicitur  esse 
appositum  ab  hereticis  Arrianis  ad  pervertendum  intellectum 
sanum  auctoritatis  premisse  de  unitate  essentie  trium  persona- 
rum.     Ilec  beatus  Thomas  ubi  supra.'  * 

*  [That  is:  —  "  Saint  Thomas,  in  his  exposition  of  the  second  Decretal 
concerning  the  Most  High  Trinity  and  the  Catholic  faith,  treating  of  this 
passage,  '  There  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  lieaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,'  in  opposition  to  the  Abbot  Joachim,  uses  pre- 


CLARKE.  81 

"If  the  Complutensian  editors  translated  the  passage  into 
Greek  from  the  Vulgate,  it  is  strange  they  made  no  mention 
of  it  in  tliis  place,  where  tliey  had  so  fair  an  opportunity, 
while  speaking  so  very  pointedly  on  the  doctrine  in  question, 
and  foi-ming  a  note  for  the  occasion,  which  is  indeed  the  only 
theological  note  in  the  whole  volume.  It  is  again  worthy  of 
note,  that,  when  these  editors  found  an  important  various 
reading  in  any  of  their  Greek  manuscripts,  they  noted  it  in 
the  margin:  an  example  occurs  1  Cor.  xvi.  51.  —  Why  was  it 
then  that  they  took  no  notice  of  so  important  an  omission  as 
the  text  of  the  three  witnesses,  if  they  really  had  no  manu- 
script in  which  it  was  contained  ?  Did  they  intend  to  deceive 
the  reader,  and  could  they  possibly  imagine  that  the  knavery 
should  never  be  detected  ?  If  they  designed  to  deceive,  they 
took  the  most  effectual  way  to  conceal  the  fraud,  as  it  is  prob- 
able they  destroyed  the  manuscripts  from  which  they  printed 
their  text;  for  the  story  of  their  being  sold  in  1749  to  a 
rocket-maker,  (see  Michaelis,  Vol.  II.  p.  440,)  is  every  way 
so  exceptionable  and  unlike  the  truth,  that  I  really  wonder 
there  should  be  found  any  person  who  would  seriously  give 
it  credit.  It  is  more  likely  the  manuscripts  were  destroyed 
at  first,  or  that  they  are  still  kept  secret,  to  prevent  the  forge- 
ry (if  it  be  one)  of  the  text  of  the  three  witnesses  from  being 
detected ;  or  the  librarian  already  mentioned  may  have  con- 
verted them  to  his  own  use.     If  they  were  not  destroyed  by 

cisely  the  following  language:  —  '  And  to  teach  the  unity  of  the  three  per- 
sons it  is  subjoinerl,  And  these  three  are  one;  wliich  is  said  on  account  of 
their  unity  of  essence.  But  Joachim,  wishing  perversely  to  refer  this  to 
a  unity  of  aflection  and  agreement,  alleged  the  text  that  follows  it.  For 
it  is  immediately  subjoined,  Ami  there  are  three  that  bear  idtness  on  earth, 
namely,  the  Spirit,  the  tvater,  and  the  blood.  And  in  some  books  it  is  added, 
And  these  three  are  one.  But  this  is  not  contained  in  the  true  copies,  but  is 
said  to  have  been  added  by  tlie  Arian  heretics  to  prevent  tlie  text  that  pre- 
cedes from  being  correct!}-  understood  as  relating  to  the  unity  of  essence  of 
the  three  persons.' —  Thus  the  blessed  Thomas,  as  above  referred  to."  —  Ed.] 
4*  F 


82  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

the  Coraplutensian  editors,  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  the 
same  manuscripts  should  come  to  light  in  some  other  part  of 
the  world,  if  not  in  the  Alcala  library  itself."  * 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  in  this  part  of  this  important  contro- 
versy, that  Dr.  Clarke's  suspicion  of  the  story  of  the  rocket- 
maker,  who  is  alleged  to  have  purchased  the  MSS.  from 
which  the  Complutensian  edition  was  formed,  and  who  was 
of  course  supposed  to  have  exploded  them  long  ago,  turns 
out  to  be  well  founded ;  and  his  anticipation  that  they  might 
one  day  be  discovered  has  at  length  been  realized.  I  copy 
the  following  passage  from  a  pamphlet  recently  published  by 
Dr.  Smith. 

■J  "  Mr.  T.  quotes  the  Bishop  of  Peterborough's  third  edition 
of  his  translation  of  Michaelis,  to  show  that  the  learned 
Bishop  has  changed  his  opinion,  and  now  believes  the  manu- 
scripts from  which  the  Complutensian  text  was  taken  to  have 
been  more  ancient  and  valuable  than,  agreeably  to  the  gen- 
eral opinion,  he  had  before  supposed.  This  is,  however,  a 
matter  which  does  not  at  all  affect  our  argument.  Undoubt- 
edly, for  reasons  of  critical  curiosity  and  satisfaction,  we 
should  be  gratified  by  knowing  the  character  and  history  of 
the  Alcala  manuscripts ;  yet  there  is  the  highest  moral  cer- 
tainty that  this  knowledge  would  do  nothing  more  than  con- 
firm what  is  already  well  enough  known.  In  fact,  the  matter 
is  established :  for  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the 
learned  Germans,  Moldenhauer  and  Tychsen,  were  the  sub- 
jects of  an  imposition  piactised  upon  them  by  some  people 
in  the  Spanish  University,  who  were  not  disposed  to  permit 
their  manuscript  treasures  to  be  scrutinized  by  Protestants. 
A  gentleman  with  whom  I  have  the  honor  of  acquaintance, 
well  known  as  a  friend  of  rational  freedom  and  a  sufferer  in 

*  Pp.  92-97. 


SMITH.  83 

its  cause,  and  whose  extraordinary  talents  as  a  linguist  and 
a  poet  have  eminently  enriched  our  literature,  John  Bow- 
ring,  Esq.,  has  spent  much  time  in  Spain,  and  was  the  inti- 
mate friend  of  the  most  enlightened,  learned,  and  patriotic 
men  in  that  country  during  its  enjoyment  of  the  blessing 
(of  which  it  has  been  so  basely  and  cruelly  robbed !)  of  a 
constitutional  government.  He  had  the  opportunity  of  care- 
fully examining  the  manuscripts  at  Alcala ;  he  has  published 
reasons  amounting  to  a  demonstration  that  no  sale  or  destruc- 
tion of  manuscripts  ever  took  place  ;  by  his  personal  exami- 
nation he  found  the  same  Scripture  manuscripts  which  had 
been  described  as  being  in  the  library,  by  Alvaro  Gomez, 
who  died  in  1580;  and  he  add^;,  '  That  the  manuscripts  re- 
ferred to  are  modern  and  valueless  there  can  be  no  longer 
any  question.'  To  Mr.  Bowring  I  am  also  indebted  for  the 
information  (which,  had  it  been  known  to  INIichaelis,  or  to  his 
learned  translator,  would  have  been  to  them  most  welcome 
intelligence,  and  would  have  saved  them  a  world  of  trouble) 
that  Gomez,  in  his  Life  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  states  that 
^  Leo  X.  lent  to  Ximenes  those  [Greek  manuscripts  which]  he 
required  from  the  Vatican  ;  which  were  returned  as  soon  as 
the  Polyglot  was  completed.'  "  * 

According  to  this  statement,  unless  some  MSS.  in  the  Vat- 
ican, yet  unexamined,  shall  be  found  to  contain  the  testimony 
of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  whicli  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Complutensian 
editors  translated  the  passage  into  Greek  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate  ;  and  thus  one  of  the  main  arguments  on  which  its 
authenticity  has  been  erected  will  be  entirely  overthrown. 

The  various  readings  of  the  Latin  MSS.  given  by  Dr. 
Clarke,  and  which  are  only  a  specimen  of  the  diversity  that 
obtains  in  this  passage  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate,  create  a 

*  Smith's  Rejoinder  to  Taylor,  1829,  pp.  48,  49. 


84  CONTROVERSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.   7. 

strong  suspicion  that  there  is  something  radically  unsound  in 
the  authority  of  the  verse.  The  unique  theological  note  also 
which  Dr.  Clarke  gives  from  the  Complutensian,  in  the  very 
ambiguity  Avhich  pervades  it,  savors  strongly  of  management. 
It  was  felt  desirable  to  support  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate, 
and  yet  it  Avas  deemed  imprudent  to  assert  that  the  passage 
was  found  in  the  Greek  MSS.  Had  the  evidence  been  sat- 
isfactory, it  would  have  been  more  distinctly  indicated. 

In  the  same  year  in  which  Dr.  Clarke's  work  was  pub- 
lished, a  series  of  papers  on  the  disputed  passage,  by  an 
acute  and  well-informed  writer,*  appeared  in  the  Christian 
Observer.  These  papers,  had  they  been  printed  separately, 
which  they  deserved  to  be,  would  have  made  a  considerable 
pamphlet.  They  give  a  very  lucid  view  of  the  principal 
points  of  evidence  for  and  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
passage ;  with  the  author's  own  observations  on  some  of  the 
writers  on  both  sides.  He  discusses  very  ably  the  state  of 
the  first  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  the  testimony  of 
the  Greek  MSS.,  that  of  the  ancient  fathers  [versions],  and 
the  Greek  and  Latin  father?,  all  of  which  he  shows  to  be 
unfavorable  to  the  authority  of  the  passage.  His  mode  of  ac- 
counting for  the  mistake,  or  supposed  mistake,  of  Stephens, 
in  placing  the  crotchet,  to  which  we  have  already  referred, 
seems  very  satisfactory. 

"  The  arguments  that  have  been  urged  in  this  and  the 
foregoing  chapter  concerning  Stephens's  MSS.  may  be  thus 
briefly  stated. 

"  First.  Neither  the  MSS.  of  the  Complutensian  editors, 
nor  those  of  Erasmus,  nor  any  of  the  150  which  now  exist, 
except  two,  both  of  modern  date,  contain  1  John  v.  7.    Hence 

*  [The  Rev.  Joseph  Jowett,  LL.  D.,  Professor  of  Civil  Law  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge.  See  Home's  Introduction,  Vol.  IV.  p.  386,  10th 
edit.  —  Ed.1 


CHRISTIAN   OBSERVER.  85 

it  seems  highly  improbable  that  it  should  be  found  in  all  Ste- 
phens's MSS.,  collected  as  they  were  from  various  quarters. 

"  Secondly.  He  returned  to  the  Royal  Library  the  MSS. 
which  he  had  borrowed  from  it.  Yet  Simon,  after  a  dili- 
gent search  in  that  library,  did  not  discover  that  verse  in  a 
single  MS. 

"Thirdly.  Two  MSS.  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  John,  which 
have  been  compared  with  the  collations  of  Stephens's  6  and 
ty,  from  an  extraordinary  coincidence  of  readings,  are  inferred 
to  be  the  very  MSS.  employed  by  that  editor.  If  this  infer- 
ence be  allowed,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  his  6  ind 
iy  had  not  the  seventh  verse,  because  it  is  in  neither  of  As 
MSS.  with  which  they  have  been  compared. 

"  These  arguments  amount  to  a  very  high  degree  of  ^s^e- 
sumptive  evidence  ;  but  great  probabilities  may  be  overcome 
by  testimony.  Let  us  then  attend  to  the  testimony  produced 
upon  this  occasion. 

"  First.  Robert  Stephens,  in  his  Latin  Testament,  154J), 
says  that  some  Greek  copies  read  thus :  Tres  sunt  qui  testi- 
monium dant  Pater,  &c.,  omitting  in  coelo. 

"  Secondly.  In  his  Greek  Testament  of  1550,  he  includes 
h  Tw  ovpavw  between  marks,  and,  in  the  margin,  names  seven 
MSS.,  in  which  he  says  these  words  are  wanting. 

"Thirdly.  In  1556  he  printed  Beza's  Latin  Testament, 
where,  in  a  note  on  1  John  v.  7,  are  the  following  words: 
'  Legimus  et  nos  in  nonnuUis  Robert!  nostri  veteribus  libris,' 
and  on  the  words  in  ccelo,  '  Hoc  deerat  in  7  vetustis  codici- 
bus.'  Now  if  Stephens  had  no  such  reading  in  his  MSS., 
how  can  these  repeated  assertions  be  accounted  for?  We 
cannot  suppose  that  he  intended  to  deceive,  where,  as  Mr 
Person  observes,  he  has  furnished  every  inquisitive  reader 
with  the  means  of  detection.  And  it  is  hard  to  conceive 
that,  if  an  error  had  been  committed  in  the  position  of  his 


86  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

semicircle,  it  should  never  be  detected  by  Stephens  himself, 
or  suggested  to  him  by  his  friends  or  enemies.  This,  how- 
ever, will  ai)pcar  less  improbable  if  we  attend  to  the  follow- 
ing consideration,  that  Stephens  returned  his  MSS.  at  least 
as  soon  as  he  had  completed  his  edition  of  1550,  perhaps 
as  soon  as  he  had  finished  his  collations.  For  when  he 
presented  a  copy  of  that  edition,  immediately  after  it  was 
printed,  to  the  divines  of  the  Sorbonne,  and  they  required 
him  to  produce  a  MS.  with  which  they  might  compare  it,  he 
answered  that  his  MSS.  had  already  been  returned  to  the 
Koyal  Library.  If,  in  the  short  and  turbulent  interval  be- 
tween that  conference  and  his  migration  from  Paris,  from 
which  city  he  was  driven  by  the  malice  of  his  persecutors, 
he  had  discovered  in  his  Greek  Testament  the  unprecedented 
reading,  which  omits  kv  rw  ovpava  while  it  retains  the  rest  of 
the  disputed  passage,  he  would  naturally  consult  his  book 
of  collations,  which  would  only  confirm  the  printed  copy ; 
for,  in  those  collations,  it  is  probable  that  the  mistake  first 
arose. 

"  To  draw  a  decisive  conclusion  from  the  above-mentioned 
facts,  would  require  no  small  skill,  in  weighing  and  balancing 
opposite  probabilities ;  and  there  is  one  material  part  of  the 
evidence,  which,  from  its  nature,  is  not  easily  to  be  appreci- 
ated, but  by  persons  who  have  had  much  experience  in  the 
collation  of  MSS.  I  mean  that  part  which  relates  to  the 
proof  of  identity  from  the  coincidence  of  readings.  How- 
ever, the  best  critics  unanimously  agree  in  the  opinion,  that 
Stephens's  MSS.  had  not  the  disputed  passage ;  and  among 
these  Mill  and  Bengelius,  whose  orthodoxy  is  not  doubted, 
and  who  were  convinced  of  its  authenticity."  * 

After  going  over  the  Greek  fathers  seriatim,  he  thus 
sums  up  his  account  of  them. 

*  Christiau  Observer,  Vol.  VI.  pp.  227,  228. 


CHRISTIAN   OBSERVER.  87 

"  On  a  review  of  the  Greek  fathers,  we  discover  no  proof 
that  any  of  them  were  acquainted  with  the  disputed  passage. 
The  omission  of  it  in  Justin  Martyr,  in  the  Adumbrations 
attributed  to  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  the  Epistle  of  the 
Bishops  at  Sardis,  in  the  Sixty-second  Oration  of  Epiphanins, 
in  the  Treatises  on  the  Holy  S[)irit  by  Basil,  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  and  Didymus,  is  hardly  to  be  reconciled  with  the  sup- 
position that  they  had  it  in  their  copies.  And  Cyril  clearly 
either  had  it  not,  or  suspected  its  authenticity.  And  though 
we  might  allow  the  omission  in  a  single  father  to  arise  from 
some  unknown  cause,  yet  the  universal  silence  of  all  the 
early  Greek  writers  forms  a  presumption  against  its  authen- 
ticity, to  which  I  know  not  what  can  be  opposed,  unless  it  be 
suggested  that  they  understood  the  words  these  three  are  one 
as  relating  merely  to  unity  of  testimony,  not  of  essence ; 
and  therefore  thought  that  no  argument  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  could  be  built  upon  it.  But  does  it  appear  that 
they  actually  put  such  a  construction  upon  these  words?  Is 
there  any  trace  of  such  an  interpretation  in  their  works  ?  Or 
is  it  at  all  probable  from  analogy,  that  they  would  unani- 
mously refuse  the  aid  of  a  passage,  which  almost  all  modern 
defenders  of  tlui  Trinity  have  employed  without  scruple  ? 

"  Even  if  these  fothers  approved  the  interpretation  above 
mentioned,  it  remains  still  to  be  shown,  why  they  never  quoted 
1  John  V.  7  in  proof  of  a  trinity  of  persons,  or  as  an  exam- 
ple of  Christ  being  called  The  Word,"  * 

After  examining  very  carefully  the  several  Latin  fathers 
who  quote  or  allude  to  this  verse,  he  thus  suras  up  his  ac- 
count of  their  testimony. 

"  From  the  foregoing  extracts  it  is  evident  that  the  Latin 
fathers  are  more  favorable  than  the  Greek  to  the  authenticity 
of  1  John  v.  7.     For  while  not  a  single  quotation  or  clear 

*  Christian  Observer,  Vol.  VI.  p.  289. 


88  CONtROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

allusion  to  it  is  found  among  the  latter,  for  the  first  thirteen 
centuries,  we  discover  a  reference  to  it  in  the  third  centnry 
by  Cyprian,  and  in  the  fifth,  express  quotations  by  Fulgenti- 
us,  and  the  author  of  the  African  Confession ;  in  the  sixth, 
by  Cassiodorus  ;  in  the  eighth,  by  Etherius  and  Beatus.  And 
is  not  their  positive  testimony  of  greater  weight  than  the 
merely  negative  testimony,  the  silence,  of  any  number  of 
Greek  or  Latin  fathers  ?  It  may  be  difficult  indeed  to  ac- 
count for  their  silence  upon  the  supposition  that  they  were 
acquainted  with  the  disputed  passage.  Yet,  if  a  single  wit- 
ness of  unsuspected  veracity  affirm  that  it  existed  in  his  copy, 
his  testimony  may  outweigh  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
mere  silence  of  great  numbers.  Since,  therefore,  a  Latin 
writer  of  the  third  century  has  referred  to  it,  will  not  his 
authority  counterbalance  the  negative  testimony  of  all  the 
Greek  fathers  ? 

"  Many  of  the  orthodox  have  thought  so,  and  the  anxious 
desire  which  some  writers  have  shown  to  set  aside  this  evi- 
dence by  the  arbitrary  and  unsatisfactory  hypothesis,  that 
Cyprian's  reference  was  to  the  eighth  verse  and  not  to  the 
seventh,  implies  that  they  felt  the  superior  force  of  affirma- 
tive testimony.  For  my  own  part,  I  freely  confess  that  if 
Cyprian  had  affirmed  that  the  seventh  verse  existed  in  his 
Greek  copy,  I  should  have  paid  very  little  regard  to  the 
omission  of  it  by  other  fathers  of  the  same  or  a  later  cen- 
tury. But,  is  this  the  case  ?  or  have  we  any  evidence  that 
he  was  in  possession  of  a  single  Greek  copy  of  St.  John's 
Epistle ;  or  that  he  could  even  read  Greek ;  or  that,  if  he 
could  read  it,  he  valued  the  Greek  copies  more  than  the 
Latin  ? 

"  Till  these  questions  are  answered  in  the  affirmative,  all 
that  we  can  infer  from  his  quotation  is,  that  the  testimony 
of  the  heavenly  witnesses  was  in  his  Latin  copy.     And  al- 


CHRISTIAN  OBSERVER.  89 

though  that  version,  from  its  higli  antiquity,  is  deserving  of 
great  respect ;  yet,  among  the  innumerable  and  discordant 
translations  into  the  Latin,  it  is  possible  that  the  disputed 
passage  might  be  interpolated  in  some  copies  as  early  as  the 
age  of  Cyprian,  and  of  course  in  those  of  Fulgentius,  Vigil- 
ius,  Cassiodorus,  Etherius,  and  Beatus,  though  unknown  to 
Augustine,  Jerome,  Eucherius,  Facundus,  and  Bede. 

"  When  we  reflect  that  the  Latin  fathers  do  not  quote  this 
passage  uniformly,  either  with  respect  to  the  words  or  the 
order  of  the  verses,  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  their  guide 
was  not  the  Greek  Original,  but  the  Latin  Version ;  in  the 
MSS.  of  which  the  same  varieties  have  been  observed. 

"  Though  the  charge  of  interpolation  may  be  thought  a 
very  serious  one,  much  will  depend  upon  the  manner  and 
the  motive.  He  who  first  inserted  the  seventh  verse  in  the 
margin  of  the  Latin  version,  probably  had  no  intention  of 
imposing  upon  the  reader  by  giving  his  own  comment  for  the 
word  of  God.  And  when  afterwards  it  obtained  a  place  in 
the  text,  the  transcriber  probably  had  no  doubt  but  that  he 
was  restoring  a  passage,  which  the  former  copyist  having 
through  inadvertence  omitted,  upon  the  discovery  of  his  mis- 
take had  inserted  in  the  margin,  for  want  of  convenient  space 
in  the  text. 

"  It  is  urged  that  the  verse  must  be  genuine  because  an 
interpolation  of  such  magnitude  and  importance  would  have 
been  speedily  detected  and  loudly  complained  of  by  the  Ari- 
ans.  But  may  we  not  on  the  other  hand,  with  equal  plausi- 
bility, contend  that  if  a  passage  so  decisively  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  been  left  out  of  the  copies  of  St. 
John's  First  Epistle,  the  omission  would  have  been  immedi- 
ately discovered  by  the  orthodox,  and  charged  upon  their 
adversaries  ?  Since  then  we  find  no  complaints  of  this  sort 
in  the  ancient  writers  of  either  party,  it  is  plain  that  no  in- 


90  CONTROVKRSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.   7. 

ference  can  be  drawn  from  a  silence  for  which,  on  both  sup- 
positions, it  is  alike  clifRcult  to  assign  a  probable  cause."* 

I  have  observed,  what  I  had  not  attended  to  till  the  pre- 
ceding sheets  were  printed,  as  my  copy  of  Mr.  Charles  But- 
ler's Horce  Bihlicce  is  contained  in  his  Miscellaneous  Works,t 
published  in  1817,  that  his  "  Short  Historical  Outline  of  the 
Disputes  respecting  the  Authenticity  of  the  Verse  of  the 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses "  was  first  published  in  1805  ; 
some  time  before  the  two  works  which  have  just  been  noticed. 
It  is  contained  in  two  Letters  "  to  the  Rev.  Herbert  Marsh," 
and  constitutes  the  second  Appendix  to  the  very  interesting 
work  of  Mr.  Butler,  which  is  known  to  every  scholar.]:  It 
illustrates  the  extensive  reading,  the  patient  research,  and 
the  great  suavity  which  distinguish  all  the  productions  of  one 
of  the  oldest  and  most  voluminous  writers  of  the  present 
day. 

This  short  outline  gives  a  more  brief  view  of  the  Contro- 
versy than  has  been  presented  in  these  papers,  and  omits 
many  things  which  have  been  introduced  in  them.  There 
are  also  a  few  inaccuracies  which  I  have  noticed,  though  they 
are  not  of  any  material  imjiortance.  The  plan  Avhich  Mr. 
Butler  pursues  is  the  following.     He  gives, 

I.  Some  account  of  the  state  of  the  question ;  II.  Of  the 
history  of  the  general  admission  of  The  Verse  into  the  printed 
text ;  in.  And  of  the  principal  disputes  to  which  it  has  given 
rise ;  IV.  An  inquiry  whether  the  general  sense  of  the  text 
is  affected  by  the  omission  of  The  Verse ;    V.  Some  account 

*  Christian  Observer,  pp.  354,  355. 

t  [The  correct  title  is  "Philological  and  Biographical  Works,"  of  which 
the  Horce  BibliccB  forms  Vol.  I. — Ed.] 

\  [This  "  Historical  Outline"  is  reprinted  in  Vol.  H.  of  Sparks's  "  Col- 
lection of  Essays  and  Tracts  in  Theology,"  Boston,  1823. —Ed.] 


BUTLER.  91 

of  the  argument  in  favor  of  its  authenticity  from  prescription ; 
VI.  Some  account  of  the  arguments  against  it  from  its  absence 
from  the  Greek  manuscripts ;  VII.  Of  the  answers  to  those 
arguments,  fi-om  its  supposed  existence  in  the  manuscripts  of 
Valla ;  VIII.  From  its  supposed  existence  in  the  manuscripts 
of  the  Complutensian  editors;  IX.  And  from  its  supposed 
existence  in  the  manuscripts  used  by  Robert  Stephens ;  X. 
Some  observations  on  the  argument  arising  on  its  not  being 
inserted  in  the  Apostolos  or  Collection  of  Ejjistles  read  in 
the  Greek  Church ;  XI.  On  its  not  being  inserted  in  the 
Oriental  versions;  XII.  On  its  not  being  inserted  in  the  most 
ancient  Latin  manuscripts ;  XIII.  On  the  silence  of  all  the 
Greek  fathers  respecting  it;  XIV.  On  the  silence  of  the 
most  ancient  of  the  Latin  fathers  respecting  it ;  XV.  Some 
account  is  then  given  of  what  has  been  written  respecting  its 
first  introduction  into  the  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts. 

Under  these  general  topics,  almost  everything  of  impor- 
tance in  the  controversy  is  noticed.  "Were  I  to  go  over 
them,  it  would  be  to  repeat  a  great  deal  of  what  has  been 
already  stated.  He  gives  the  evidence  pro  and  con  with 
great  candor  and  accuracy ;  but  lays  more  stress  on  several 
points  than  I  conceive  they  will  fairly  bear.  One  or  two 
passages  deserve  to  be  quoted  for  the  information  which  they 
contain.  As  a  Catholic,  he  feels  himself  in  some  difficulty 
from  the  Decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  pronounces 
the  authenticity  and  correctness  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  The 
following  passage  explains  the  process  by  which  a  good  Cath- 
olic may  escape  from  the  anathema  of  the  Council,  though 
he  may  dispute  the  authenticity  of  this  verse.  Dr.  Geddes 
would  have  cut  the  knot  which  Mr.  Butler's  reasoning  does 
not  unloose. 

'•  Here  the  communicant  with  the  see  of  Rome  takes  an 
higher  ground.     The  Council  of  Trent,  Session  4,  declared 


92  CONTROVERSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.   7. 

anathema  to  all  '  who  should  not  receive  for  holy  and  canoni- 
cal, all  and  every  part  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  New- 
Testament,  as  they  had  been  accustomably  read  in  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  as  they  stood  in  the  old  vulgate  edition:* 
And  in  the  sixth  session,  declared  '  the  Vulgate  to  be  authen- 
tic, and  that  no  one  should,  on  any  pretence,  dare  or  presume 
to  reject  it.' 

"  Now,  when  the  Council  of  Trent  made  this  decree,  The 
Verse  had  long  been  accustomably  read  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  long  made  a  part  in  the  old  vulgate  edition ; 
those,  therefore,  in  communion  with  the  see  of  Home,  who 
now  reject  The  Verse,  fall  within  the  Council's  anathema. 

"  To  these  objections  the  adversaries  of  The  Verse  reply : 

"  1st,  That,  in  the  times  of  which  we  are  now  speaking, 
there  was  little  of  biblical  criticism,  and  that  no  works  of 
those  times  have  reached  us,  in  which  such  an  objection 
either  would  be  made,  or  would  be  noticed. 

"  2dly,  That,  before  too  great  a  stress  is  laid  on  its  inser- 
tion in  the  Vulgate,  an  accurate  notion  should  be  formed  of 
the  edition  denoted,  in  these  cases,  by  the  appellation  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate.  It  does  not  denote  the  edition,  anterior  to 
St.  Jerome,  which,  from  its  superior  celebrity,  was  called  the 
Ancient  Italic ;  it  does  not  denote  the  edition  published  by 
St.  Jerome ;  it  merely  denotes  that  edition,  which,  at  the 
time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  was  generally  in  use;  and 
afterwards  served  as  the  ground-work  of  the  editions  pub- 
lished, first  by  Sixtus  Quintus,  afterwards  by  Clement  the 
Eighth,  and  which  last  edition  is  the  archetype  of  the  mod- 
ern Vulgate :  that  this  edition  partook  more  of  the  modern 
than  of  ancient  versions ;  and  that,  standing  by  itself,  it  is,  in 
a  matter  of  criticism,  of  no  autliority. 

"  3dly,  To  suppose  that  the  Council  of  Trent  pronounced 
the  Vulgate  to  be  wholly  free  from  error,  and  that  no  one  was 


BUTLER.  93 

at  liberty  to  vary  from  it,  in  translation  or  exposition,  is  go- 
ing to  an  extreme.  In  declaring  it  to  be  authentic,  the  Coun- 
cil did  not  declare  the  Vulgate  to  be  inspired  or  infallible ; 
the  Council  only  pronounced  it  to  be  inerrant,  where  the 
dogmata  of  faith  or  morals  are  concerned.  In  this  decision 
every  Roman  Catholic  must  acquiesce,  as  he  receives  the 
Scripture  from  the  Church,  under  her  authority,  and  with  her 
interpretation ;  but  further  than  this,  the  Council  leaves  the 
Vulgate,  in  mere  matters  of  criticism,  to  the  private  judgment 
of  every  individual.  To  this  effect  Father  Salmeron,  who 
was  one  of  the  ten  first  disciples  of  St.  Ignatius,  and  who 
assisted  at  the  Council  of  Trent  in  the  character  of  one  of 
the  Pope's  theologians,  is  cited  by  the  Abbe  de  Vence,  to 
have  expressed  himself  in  the  third  of  his  prolegomena."  * 

Mr.  Butler  does  not  seem  quite  satisfied  with  this  reason- 
ing, and  hence  he  introduces  Bossuet,  who  speaks  in  a  much 
higher  tone  of  authority. 

"  In  this  stage  of  the  argument,  Bossuet  takes  very  high 
ground  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Leibniz,  published  by  Mr. 
Dutens,  in  his  edition  of  Leibniz's  works ;  as,  in  that  letter, 
Bossuet  seems  to  place  the  general  acquiescence  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church  in  the  authenticity  of  The  Verse, 
among  the  traditions  which  the  Church  receives,  and  the 
faithful  are  therefore  bound  to  adopt.  As  everything  which 
has  fallen  from  the  pen  of  that  great  man  is  important,  and 
the  passage  in  question  is  little  known,  it  is  here  transcribed 
at  length. 

" '  J'avoue  au  reste.  Monsieur,  ce  vous  dites  des  anciens 
exemplaires  Grecs  sur  le  passage,  Tres  sunt,  ^c;  mais  vous 
s^avez  aj|ssi-bien  que  moi,  que  I'article  contenu  dans  ce  pas- 
sage ne  doit  pas  gtre  pour  cela  r^voqu^  en  doute,  ^tant  d'ail- 

♦  Pp.  383-386. 


94  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

leurs  etabli,  non-seulement  par  la  Tradition  des  Eglises,  mais 
encore  par  I'Ecriture  tres  evidemment.  Vous  S9avez  aussi 
sans  (loute,  que  ce  passage  se  trouve  re^u  dans  tout  I'Occi- 
dent ;  ce  qui  paroit  manifests,  sans  mgme  remonter  plus  haut, 
par  la  production  qu'en  fait  S.  Fulgence  dans  ses  Ecrits,  & 
meme  dans  une  excellente  Confession  de  foi  presentee  unani- 
ra^ment  au  Roi  Huneric  par  toute  I'Eglise  d'Afrique.  Ce 
temoignage  produit  par  un  aussi  grand  Theologien,  &  par 
cette  S9avante  Eglise,  n'ayant  point  ete  reproche  par  les  liere- 
tiques,  &  au  contraire  etant  confirme  par  le  sang  de  tant  de 
martyrs,  et  encore  par  tant  de  miracles,  dont  cette  Confession 
de  foi  fut  suivie,  est  une  demonstration  de  la  Tradition,  du 
moins  de  toute  I'Eglise  d'Afrique,  I'une  des  plus  illustres 
du  monde.  On  trouve  meme  dans  S.  Cyprien  une  allu- 
sion manifeste  k  ce  passage,  qui  a  pass^  naturellement  dans 
notre  Vulgate,  &  confirme  la  Tradition  de  tout  I'Occident. 

Je  suis,  &c. 

"  '  t  J.  Benigne,  Eveque  de  Meaiix.'  "  * 

*  Pp.  384,  385.  [That  is :  —  "I  acknowledge  moreover,  Sir,  the  truth 
of  what  you  say  respecting  the  ancient  Greek  copies  on  the  passage,  There 
are  three,  &c. ;  but  you  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that  the  article  of  faith  con- 
tained in  this  passage  ought  not  to  be  called  in  question  on  that  account, 
being  otherwise  established,  not  only  by  the  tradition  of  the  churches,  but 
very  evidently  by  Scripture.  You  also  know,  without  doubt,  that  this 
passage  has  been  received  throughout  the  entire  West;  which  is  shown, 
without  going  further  back,  by  its  citation  in  the  writings  of  St.  Fulgen- 
tius,  and  even  in  an  excellent  Confession  of  Faith  unanimously  presented 
to  King  Huneric  by  the  whole  African  Church.  This  testimony,  produced 
by  so  great  a  theologian,  and  by  this  learned  Church,  having  not  been  ob- 
jected to  by  the  heretics,  and,  on  the  contrary,  having  been  confirmed  by 
the  blood  of  so  many  martyrs,  and  still  further  by  so  many  miracles  fol- 
lowing this  Confession  of  F'aith,  is  a  demonstration  of  the  tradition  at  least 
of  the  whole  African  Church,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  in  the  world. 
We  find  even  in  Saint  Cyprian  a  manifest  allusion  to  this  passage,  which 
naturally  passed  into  our  Vulgate,  and  confirms  the  tradition  of  the  whole 
West.    I  am,  &c., 

"  t  J.  Benigne,  Bishop  of  jlfeaua;."] 


BUTLER.  95 

/ 

Tradition  is  no  canon  of  criticism,  and  can  therefore  prove 
nothing  in  matters  where  parcliment  and  ink  are  the  only 
authorities.  Mr.  Butler,  with  his  characteristic  caution,  does 
not  give  his  own  opinion  on  this  curious,  and,  to  all  well-in- 
formed men,  unsatisflictory  mode  of  reasoning;  nor  does 
he  give  a  positive  opinion  on  the  spuriousness  or  authen- 
ticity of  the  verse  in  question.  He  leaves  the  rea,der  to 
guess  whether  he  doubts  as  a  critic,  but  believes  as  a  Cath- 
olic. 

On  another  point  a  passage  of  some  importance  occurs, 
and  which  has  also  a  bearing  on  the  critical  authority  of  the 
received  and  infallibly  ascertained  text  of  the  Vulgate. 

"The   adversaries   of  The   Verse   contend   that  —  it   is 

WANTING    IN    FORTY    OF   THE    MOST    ANCIENT    MANUSCRIPTS 

OP  THE  Latin  version.  This,  they  say,  equipoises,  if  it  do 
not  overbalance  the  authority  of  those  Latin  manuscripts  in 
which  it  is  contained. 

"In  1743,  Sabatier  published,  at  Rheims,  his  "  Bibliorum 
sacrorum  Latinaj  versiones  antiquos,  seu  vetus  Italica,  et  ce- 
terte  qua;cunque  in  codicibus  Manuscriptis  reperiri  potuerunt, 
quae  cum  vulgatu  Latina  et  cum  textu  Gra^co  comparantur." 
The  object  of  the  work  is  to  restore  the  text  of  the  ancient 
Italic  by  putting  together  the  quotations  of  the  Bible  in  the 
works  of  the  ancient  fathers ;  where  none  can  be  found,  vSa- 
batier  supplies  the  chasm  from  the  Vulgate.  He  was  so 
fortunate  as  to  find,  in  different  parts  of  the  works  of  St. 
Augustin,  a  sufficient  number  of  quotations  to  form  the 
whole  of  the  first  four  chapters,  and  likewise  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth.  But,  when  he  comes  to  the  seventh  verse,  this 
very  voluminous  father,  who  wrote  not  less  than  ten  treatises 
on  the  Epistle  in  question,  suddenly  deserts  him,  though  im- 
mediately after  this  critical  place,  he  comes  again  to  his 
assistance.     This  chasm,  therefore,  Sabatier   fills  up  by  a 


96  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

quotation  from  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  who  wrote  at  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century."  * 

This  fact  is,  I  conceive,  of  great  importance.  It  shows 
very  clearly,  that  even  in  the  writings  of  the  Latin  fathers, 
till  the  fifth  century,  beside  being  wanting  in  many  of  tlie 
best  and  oldest  MSS.,  the  verse  did  not  exist. 

Mr.  Butler  thinks  that  the  principal  argument  in  favor  of 
the  verse,  which  has  not  been  satisfactorily  answered,  is  its 
having  a  place  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  presented  by  the 
African  Bishoi>s  to  Huneric.  This  is  part  of  the  controver- 
sy between  Travis  and  Person,  in  which  Mr.  Butler  thinks 
the  latter  displayed  his  M'it  more  than  his  logic  or  learning. 
His  own  argument  on  that  passage  in  the  creed,  however, 
appears  to  me  very  inconclusive.  It  is  full  of  supposition  and 
hypothesis.  But  as  this  topic  will  occur  again  in  our  notice 
of  Bishop  Burgess's  publications,  we  shall  advert  to  it  no 
further  at  present. 

The  valuable  work  of  the  late  Bishop  Middleton  on  the 
Greek  Article,  which  was  published  in  1808,  contains  a  long 
and  learned  note,  or  rather  disquisition,  on  this  passage. 
This  volume  displays  more  profound  learning,  laborious  in- 
vestigation, and  critical  acumen,  than  any  critical  or  philo- 
logical work  on  the  New  Testament  published  in  this  country 
during  the  present  century.  It  is  impossible  too  highly  to 
estimate  its  value  as  an  aid  to  the  critical  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament.  Independently  of  the  labored  and  phi- 
losophical discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Article,  the  appli- 
cation of  the  doctrine  to  the  interpretation  of  many  important 
passages  has  enabled  the  learned  author  to  throw  much  light 
upon  them.  The  way  in  which  Dr.  Middleton  was  led  into 
a  discussion  on  the  disputed  passage,  he  thus  explains :  — 

•  Pp.  395,  896. 


MIDDLETON.  97 

"It  has  been  insisted,  that  the  omission  of  the  rejected 
passage  rather  embariasses  the  context :  Bengel  regards  the 
two  verses  as  being  connected  ^adamantind  cohcerentid :'  and 
jei,  it  must  be  allowed,  that  among  the  various  mterpreta- 
tions  there  are  some  which  will  at  least  endure  the  absence 
of  the  seventh  verse.  But  the  difficulty  to  which  the  present 
imdertaking  has  directed  my  attention  is  of  another  kind : 
it  respects  the  Article  in  els  to  (p  in  the  final  clause  of  the 
eighth  verse :  if  the  seventh  verse  had  not  been  spurious, 
nothing  could  have  been  plainer  than  that  TO  fv  of  verse  8 
referred  to  ev  of  verse  7 :  as  the  case  now  stands,  I  do  not 
perceive  the  force  or  meaning  of  the  article ;  and  the  same 
difficulty  is  briefly  noticed  by  Wolfius.  In  order  to  prove 
that  this  is  not  merely  nodum  in  scirpo  qiicerere,  I  think  it 
right  to  examine  at  some  length  what  are  the  occasions  on 
which  before  eh  the  article  may  be  inserted."  * 

The  nature  of  the  argument  which  is  pursued,  in  order  to 
account  for  the  use  of  the  article  in  the  eighth  verse,  cannot 
be  understood  unless  I  were  to  quote,  what  is  impossible,  the 
whole  dissertation.  Nor  is  it  necessary  I  should  do  so,  as 
Dr.  Middleton  himself  is  unable  satisfactorily  to  account  for 
the  occurrence  of  the  article  in  the  8th  verse  consistently  with 
his  doctrine,  nor  can  he,  on  the  other  hand,  satisfactorily  get 
rid  of  it.  His  own  convictions  seem,  on  the  whole,  to  have 
been  unfavorable  to  the  authority  of  the  verse,  and  yet  he 
thinks  the  matter  not  yet  entirely  decided. 

"  In  concluding  this  note,"  he  says,  "  I  think  it  right  to  of- 
fer something  towards  its  vindication.  I  am  not  ignorant, 
that  in  the  rejection  of  the  controverted  passage  learned  and 
good  men  are  now,  for  the  most  part,  agreed ;  and  I  con- 
template with  admiration  and  delight  the  gigantic  exertions 
of  intellect  which  have   established  this  acquiescence :    the 

*  Pp.  633,  634. 


98  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

objection,  however,  which  has  given  rise  to  this  discussion,  I 
could  not  consistently  with  my  plan  suppress.  On  the  whole, 
I  am  led  to  suspect,  that  though  so  much  labor  and  critical 
acuteness  have  been  bestowed  on  these  celebrated  verses, 
more  is  yet  to  be  done  before  the  mystery  in  which  they  are 
involved  can  be  wholly  developed."  * 

Much  as  I  respect  the  learning  and  talents  of  Bishop  Mid- 
dleton,  I  cannot  allow  that  a  difficulty,  which  may  belong  to 
the  use  of  the  article  by  one  of  the  inspired  writers,  and  he 
by  no  means  invainably  correct  in  his  Greek  phraseology, 
ought  materially  to  affect  our  judgment  of  the  readings  on 
which  an  accurate  text  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  founded. 
Such  difficulties  may  be  a  kind  of  subsidiary  evidence  on  one 
side  or  another;  but  can  be  no  satisfactory  proof  of  the  real 
reading.  It  is  but  justice  to  Dr.  Middleton  to  say,  that  it  is 
only  on  this  ground  that  he  argues ;  for  though  he  conceives 
that  something  additional  may  yet  be  brought  forward  on  the 
disputed  verse,  the  evident  leaning  of  his  mind  was  to  the 
evidence  in  opposition  to  its  authenticity. 

The  controversy  experienced  a  temporary  revival  in  1809 
and  1810,  by  the  appearance  of  an  article  in  the  Eclectic 
Review.  This  able  paper,  which  I  believe  I  am  justified  in 
ascribing  to  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith,  of  Homei'- 
ton,  is  a  review  of  the  Improved  Version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, by  some  anonymous  Unitarians.  The  disputed  passage 
here  passes  under  review,  in  noticing  the  text  from  which  the 
Improved  Version  had  been  formed.  In  reference  to  it,  the 
learned  writer  says,  "  It  is  found  in  no  Greek  MS.,  ancient 
or  recent,  except  one  to  which  we  shall  presently  advert; — ■ 
in  no  ancient  version,  being  interpolated  only  in  the  later 
transcripts  of  the  Vulgate.      Not  one  of  the   Greek  fathers 

*  Pp.  652,  653. 


J.  p.  SMITH.  99 

recognizes  it,  though  many  of  thera  collect  every  species  and 
shadow  of  argument,  down  to  the  most  allegorical  and  shock- 
ingly ridiculous,  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  — 
though  they  often  cite  the  words  immediately  contiguous, 
both  before  and  after,  —  and  though,  with  immense  labor  and 
art,  they  extract  from  the  next  words  the  very  sense  which 
this  passage  has  in  following  times  been  adduced  to  furnish. 
Of  the  Latin  fathers,  not  one  has  quoted  it,  till  Euchei-ius, 
of  Lyons,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century ;  and  in  his 
works  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  it  has  been  inter- 
polated." * 

The  expression  of  this  opinion  roused  the  indignation  of 
an  individual,  who  had  more  zeal  than  knowledge.  Shortly 
after  there  appeared  "  The  Critique  in  the  Eclectic  Review, 
on  1  John  v.  7,  confuted  by  Martin's  Examination  of  Em- 
lyn's  Answer;  to  which  is  added,  an  Appendix,  containing 
remarks  on  Mr.  Person's  Letters  to  Archdeacon  Travis.  By 
4  J.  Pharez."  8vo.  1809.  To  this  feeble  champion  of  a  lost 
cause,  the  learned  reviewer  rejoined,  in  two  able  papers  in 
the  mouths  of  January  and  February,  1810.  After  going 
through  the  several  steps  of  the  argument  in  a  very  lucid 
and  masterly  manner,  he  thus  characterizes  this  production 
of  the  Dunciad  :  —  "  The  pamphlet  which  has  led  us  to  this 
discussion  must  be  allowed  to  be  an  extraordinary  production. 
A  Greek  motto  on  the  title-page  is  so  happily  managed,  as  to 
suggest  shrewd  proof  that  the  writer  cannot  construe  a  line 
of  that  language.  Grossly  destitute  of  literature,  and  the 
very  lowest  principles  of  critical  science,  he  assaults  the 
greatest  critic  in  Europe,  and  sings  aloud  his  self-complacent 
triumph.  Actually  ignorant  what  words  are  deemed  spurious, 
and  what  are  held  to  be  genuine,  and  equally  ignorant  on  the 

*  Eclectic  Review,  Vol.  V.  p.  248. 


100  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

nature  of  the  evidence  and  the  minor  points  of  the  case,  he 
blunders  through  page  after  page  with  the  most  comfortable 
fatuity.  He  truly  deserves  our  pity ;  but  as  to  feeling  angry 
with  him,  it  is  quite  impossible."  * 

In  1810,  the  publication  of  a  British  edition  of  Griesbach's 
Greek  Testament,  in  an  appendix  to  the  second  volume  of 
which  is  a  valuable  dissertation  on  1  John  v.  7,  brought  more 
generally  before  British  scholars  the  judgment  and  reason- 
ings of  that  distinguished  critic.  It  contains  a  succinct  and 
correct  statement  of  the  whole  case,  which  is  decidedly  un- 
favorable to  the  authenticity  of  the  verse.  The  substance 
of  the  dissertation  is,  that  the  text  is  not  found  in  any  Greek 
MS.  except  one  of  very  recent  date,  —  that  it  is  not  quoted 
by  any  Greek  father,  —  and  that  it  rests  chiefly  on  the  au- 
thority of  Vigilius  Tapsensis.  He  sums  up  his  discussion 
by  saying,  "  If  vouchers  so  few,  doubtful,  suspected,  and  re- 
cent, and  arguments  so  trifling,  could  suffice  to  establish  the 
genuineness  of  any  reading,  in  opposition  to  so  many  weighty 
testimonies  and  arguments,  there  would  no  longer  be  any  cri- 
terion of  truth  and  falsehood  in  criticism,  and  the  whole  text 
of  the  New  Testament  would  become  wholly  uncertain  and 
doubtful." 

The  authority  of  Griesbach  in  matters  of  criticism  stands 
deservedly  high.  His  doctrinal  sentiments  are  not  suspected 
of  heterodoxy,  his  candor  is  generally  acknowledged ;  and 
of  his  learning,  laborious  diligence  and  soundness  of  judg- 
ment, there  can  be  but  one  oj^inion  among  competent  judges. 
The  influence  of  his  decisions  on  the  correctness  of  any  read- 
ing may  therefore  be  expected  to  be  great.  Indeed,  I  ques- 
tion whether  the  authority  of  any  text,  which  he  has  decidedly 
rejected,  is  likely  to  be  restored.  Doubts,  it  is  true,  exist  re- 
*  Eclectic  Review,  Vol.  VI.  p.  162. 


NOLAN.  101 

specting  his  mode  of  classifying  the  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, and  something  very  formidable  has  been  adduced 
both  by  Laurence  and  Nolan  against  his  whole  system  of 
recensions ;  but  I  do  not  know  that  the  results,  as  to  the  text, 
wiU  be  materially  different,  though  a  very  different  system 
of  classification  should  be  adopted.  His  judgment  as  to  the 
age  and  authority  of  the  various  MSS.  which  have  been  ex- 
amined, and  of  the  collateral  evidence,  is  likely  to  stand  the 
test  of  the  most  rigorous  examination. 

Previously  to  entering  on  the  controversy  in  which  Dr. 
Burgess,  formerly  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  now  of  Salisbury, 
has  been  so  long  engaged,  and  which  still  continues,  it  may 
be  proper  to  notice  several  works  in  which  the  subject  occu- 
pies a  prominent  place,  though  it  is  a  secondary,  and  not  the 
primary  object.  Such,  however,  is  the  importance  attached 
to  the  authority  of  this  passage  by  the  writers,  that  it  is  not 
going  too  far,  perhaps,  to  say,  that  had  not  this  passage,  and 
one  or  two  others,  been  concerned,  the  volumes  we  are  about 
to  refer  to  would  never,  probably,  have  been  written.  Tliey 
form  an  additional  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
controversy  has  branched  off  into  other  subjects. 

The  first  of  these  works  which  deserves  attention  is  one 
of  great  labor  and  research.  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Integrity 
of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  or  Received  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment: in  which  the  Greek  Manuscripts  are  newly  classed, 
the  Integrity  of  the  authorized  Text  vindicated,  and  the 
various  Readings  traced  to  their  Origin.  By  the  Rev.  Fred- 
erick Nolan,  a  Presbyter  of  the  United  Church."  London. 
1815.  The  leading  object  of  Mr.  Nolan's  work  is  to  main- 
tain the  integrity  or  correctness  of  the  common  Greek  text 
against  the  objections  of  Griesbach,  and  especially  to  over- 
throw his  classification  of  the  Manuscripts.     He  has  done  a 


102  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

good  deal  to  shake  the  fabric  on  which  the  learned  German 
has  constructed  his  ingenious  system  of  classification ;  but  not 
much  to  establi.-^li  the  immaculate  purity  of  the  common  text. 
After  making,  in  his  preface,  some  objections  to  the  elaborate 
theories  of  those  who  maintain  the  imperfections  of  the  text, 
he  proceeds  to  state  his  own  theory,  or  plan  of  defence,  and 
the  arrangement  of  his  work. 

"  On  these  grounds  the  first  notion  was  formed  by  the  au- 
thor of  the  following  pages,  that  an  Inquiry  into  the  history 
of  the  sacred  text  would  most  probably  lead  to  the  perfect 
vindication  of  the  vulgar  edition.  He  was  encouraged  in  this 
expectation  by  the  efi^ect  which  he  perceived  a  few  facts  had 
in  solving  some  of  the  greatest  difficulties  which  embarrassed 
its  history.  At  two  periods  only  could  he  perceive  the  possi- 
bility of  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  having  been  interrupted ; 
during  the  ascendancy  of  the  Arian  party  under  Constantine, 
and  on  its  suppression  under  the  elder  Theodosius.  The  de- 
struction of  the  sacred  books  in  the  Dioclesian  persecution, 
and  the  revisal  of  the  sacred  text  by  Eusebius,  furnished  an 
adequate  solution  of  the  greatest  difficulty  which  arose,  from 
the  varieties  in  the  copies  of  the  original  text,  and  of  the 
translations  which  differ  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

"  To  this  point,  of  consequence,  his  first  attention  is  turned; 
and  it  foinns  the  subject  of  the  first  section  of  the  following 
Inquiry.  He  has  thence  endeavored  to  show  that  the  coin- 
cidence between  the  Eastern  and  Western  texts,  on  which 
the  credit  of  the  Corrected  Edition  is  rested,  must  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  revisal,  which  was  pub- 
lished under  the  auspices  of  the  Emperor  Constantine. 

"  Thus  far,  however,  a  negative  argument  is  deduced  in 
favor  of  the  Received  Text.  The  character  of  this  text  still 
remains  to  be  investigated :  to  this  point  tlie  author  next  di- 
rects his  attention,  and  he  prosecutes  it  through  the  two  fol- 


NOLAN.  103 

lowing  sections.  As  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Churches  render  tlieir  testimony  of  the  liighest 
authority  in  ascertaining  the  genuine  text ;  on  their  joint  au- 
thority he  has  consequently  ventured  to  distribute  the  Greek 
Manuscripts  into  Classes ;  and  to  vindicate  that  particular 
class  of  text  which  exists  in  the  vulgar  edition. 

"  From  the  ground  thus  taken  up,  the  whole  subject  may 
be  commanded  almost  at  a  glance.  In  the  following  sections, 
the  tradition  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches  is  carefully 
traced  from  the  apostolical  age ;  and  on  the  concurring  or 
relative  testimony  of  those  witnesses,  the  general  and  doctri- 
nal integrity  of  the  Received  Text  is  established.  In  vindi- 
cation of  tlie  verbal  integrity  of  this  text,  the  evidence  of  the 
Syriac  Church  is  called  in ;  and  on  the  joint  testimony  of 
the  primitive  Version  of  this  Church,  and  the  primitive  Ital- 
ic, a  decisive  argument  is  finally  deduced  in  favor  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

"  In  the  last  section,  the  author  has  endeavored  to  point 
out  the  particular  manner  in  wliich  the  remaining  Classes  of 
Text,  into  which  the  Greek  Manuscripts  are  distributed,  have 
originated  from  a  corruption  of  the  vulgar  edition.  The 
whole  of  the  diversities  in  those  manuscripts  are  traced  to 
three  revisals  of  the  sacred  text,  which  were  published  in 
Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Constantinople.  The  number  of  vari- 
ous readings  is  thence  easily  accounted  for ;  and  a  solution 
offered  of  some  objections  which  are  raised  to  the  doctrinal 
and  verbal  integrity  of  the  Received  Text  or  Vulgar  edition. 

"  From  this  brief  sketch  of  the  plan  of  the  work,  the  reader 
will  easily  comprehend  in  what  manner  the  author  has  avoided 
those  consequences  wliich  he  charges  on  tlie  systems  of  his 
opponents :  and  how  the  integrity  of  the  Received  Text  may 
be  established  indei)endent  of  the  objections  which  lie  against 
the  Corrected  Edition.     An  iutciTuption  in  the  tradition,  by 


104  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

which  the  former  text  is  supported,  is  admitted  to  have  taken 
place,  when  the  scripture  canon  was  revised  by  Eusebius, 
and  the  Church  became  subject  to  the  dominion  of  the  Ari- 
ans.  But  the  tradition  is  carried  above  tliis  period,  wliich 
did  not  exceed  forty  yeai's,  and  tlie  Received  Text  proved  to 
have  existed  previously,  by  its  coincidence  with  those  Ver- 
sions of  the  Oriental  and  Western  Churches  which  were 
made  before  the  text  was  revised  by  Eusebius.  So  that,  al- 
though the  tradition  has  been  interrupted  for  this  inconsider- 
able period,  it  has  remained  as  unsophisticated  in  the  two 
centuries  which  preceded  Constantine's  age,  as  in  the  last 
fourteen,  during  which  it  has  confessedly  remained  uncor- 
rupted."  * 

All  this  may  seem  very  plausible,  and  is  very  ingeniously 
supported  by  the  learned  author ;  but  it  is  one  of  the  purest 
hypotheses  ever  devised  to  support  a  favorite  idea.  It  as- 
cribes a  great  deal  too  much  to  the  tradition  of  churches ; 
assumes  that  they  took  more  pains  to  preserve  or  to  corrupt 
the  text  than  there  is  any  reason  to  believe  they  ever  did ; 
and  refers  to  revisals  and  editions,  almost  as  if  he  were  speak- 
ing of  printed  works.  He  contends  for  what  I  conceive  to 
be  a  very  objectionable  position,  —  the  doctrinal  purity  of  a 
church,  as  the  guaranty  of  the  purity  of  the  text  of  Scrip- 
ture, instead  of  the  text  preserved  by  the  providence  of  God, 
the  great  means  of  correcting  the  errors  and  guiding  the 
opinions  of  all  churches.  Mr.  Nolan  certainly  does  not  in- 
tend to  serve  the  cause  of  Popery,  but  there  is  something 
in  his  argument  which  a  learned  Roman  Catholic  would  con- 
sider as  very  favorable  to  one  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  his 
church,  —  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tradition. 

It  is  not  my  business,  however,  to  pronounce  upon  the 
general  merits  of  Mr.  Nolan's  work  further  than  they  have 
*  Nolan's  Inquiry,  Pref.  pp.  xii.  -  xv. 


NOLAN.  105 

a  relation  to  the  subject  of  our  Memoir.  I  consider  Gries- 
bach's  clasi^ification  of  MSS.  arbitrary  and  hypothetical ;  I 
have  the  same  opinion  of  Nolan's  hypothesis,  which  is  placed 
in  opposition  to  it.  He  has  succeeded  in  domolirihing  the 
fabric  of  his  opponent,  but  not  in  establishing  his  own.  The 
integrity  or  incorrectness  of  the  Greek  text  must  be  proved 
or  disproved  by  facts  and  reasonings,  independent  of  all  such 
schemes. 

Mr.  Nolan  abandons  the  authority  of  the  Greek  MSS.  and 
the  Greek  Church  in  support  of  the  disputed  passage,  and 
rests  its  defence  entirely  on  that  of  the  Latin  or  African 
Church.  I  cannot  give  the  whole  of  his  argument,  but  the 
following  passage,  I  think,  contains  everything  of  importance 
in  it. 

"  With  respect  to  1  John  v.  7.  the  case  is  materially  differ- 
ent. If  this  verse  be  received,  it  must  be  admitted  on  the 
single  testimony  of  the  Western  Church ;  as  far  at  least  as 
respects  the  external  evidence.  And  though  it  may  seem 
unwarrantable  to  set  aside  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Church, 
and  pay  exclusive  respect  to  the  Latin,  where  a  question 
arises  on  the  authenticity  of  a  passage  which  properly  belongs 
to  the  text  of  the  Ibrmer ;  yet,  when  the  doctrine  inculcated 
in  that  passage  is  taken  into  account,  there  may  be  good  rea- 
son for  giving  even  a  preference  to  the  Western  Church  over 
that  of  the  Eastern,  The  former  was  uncorrupted  by  the 
heresy  of  the  Arians,  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  pas- 
sage in  question ;  the  latter  was  wholly  resigned  to  that 
heresy  for  at  least  forty  years,  while  the  Western  Cliurch 
retained  its  purity.  And  Avhile  the  testimony  borne  by  the 
latter  on  the  subject  before  us  is  consistent  and  full,  that 
boi'ne  by  the  former  is  internally  defective.  It  is  delivered 
in  language  which  has  not  even  the  merit  of  being  grammat- 
ically correct;  while  the  testimony  of  the  latter  is  not  only 

5* 


106  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

unexceptionable  in  itself,  but  possesses  the  singular  merit  of 
removing  the  forementioned  imperfection,  on  being  merely 
turned  into  Greek,  and  inserted  in  the  context  of  the  original. 
Under  these  circumstances  there  seems  to  be  little  reason- 
ableness in  allowing  the  Western  Church  any  authority,  and 
denying  it,  in  this  instance,  a  preference  over  the  Eastern. 

"  But  numberless  circumstances  conspire  to  strengthen  the 
authority  of  the  Latin  Church  in  supporting  the  authenticity 
of  this  passage.  The  particular  Church  on  whose  testimony 
principally  we  receive  the  disputed  verse,  is  that  of  Africa. 
And  even  at  the  first  sight,  it  must  be  evident,  that  the  most 
imjilicit  respect  is  due  to  its  testimony. 

"1.  In  those  great  convulsions  which  agitated  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches  for  eight  years,  with  scarcely  any  in- 
termission ;  and  which  subjected  the  sacred  text  to  the  great- 
est changes,  through  that  vast  tract  of  country  which  extends 
round  the  Levant,  from  Libya  to  Illyricum,  the  African  prov- 
inces were  exposed  to  the  horrors  of  persecution  but  for  an 
inconsiderable  period.  The  Church,  of  course,  which  was 
established  in  this  region,  neither  required  a  new  supply  of 
sacred  books,  nor  received  those  which  had  been  revised  by 
Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome ;  as  removed  out  of  the  range  of 
the  influence  of  those  ancient  fathers. 

"  2.  As  the  African  Church  possessed  this  competency  to 
deliver  a  pure  unsophisticated  testimony  on  the  subject  before 
us ;  that  which  it  has  borne  is  as  explicit  as  it  is  plenary : 
since  it  is  delivered  in  a  Confession  prepared  by  the  whole 
Church  assembled  in  council.  After  the  African  provinces 
had  been  overrun  by  the  Vandals,  Hunerick,  their  king,  sum- 
moned the  bishops  of  this  Church,  and  of  the  adjacent  isles, 
to  deliberate  on  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  the  disputed  pas- 
sage. Between  three  and  four  hundred  prelates  attended 
the  Council,  which  met  at  Carthage ;  and  Eugenius,  as  bishop 


NOLAN.  107 

of  that  see,  drew  up  the  Confession  of  the  orthodox,  in  which 
the  contested  verse  is  expressly  quoted.  That  a  whole  church 
should  thus  concur  in  quoting  a  verse  which  was  not  contained 
in  the  received  text,  is  wholly  inconceivable :  and  admitting 
that  1  John  v.  7  was  thus  generally  received,  its  universal  pre- 
valence in  that  text  is  only  to  be  accounted  for  by  supposing 
it  to  have  existed  in  it  from  the  beginning. 

"  3.  The  testimony  which  the  African  Churcli  has  borne  on 
the  subject  before  us  is  not  more  strongly  recommended  by 
the  universal  consent,  than  the  immemorial  tradition  of  the 
evidence  which  attests  the  authenticity  of  the  contested  pas- 
sage. Victor  Vitensis  and  Fulgentius,  Marcus  Celedensis, 
St.  Cyprian,  and  TertuUian,  were  Africans,  and  have  referred 
to  the  verse  before  us.  Of  these  witnesses,  which  follow 
each  other  at  almost  equal  intervals,  the  first  is  referred  to 
the  age  of  Eugenius,  the  last  to  that  nearly  of  the  Apostles. 
They  thus  form  a  traditionary  chain,  carrying  up  the  testi- 
mony of  the  African  Church  until  it  loses  itself  in  time  im- 
memorial. 

"  4.  The  testimony  of  the  African  Church,  which  possesses 
these  strong  recommendations,  receives  confirmation  from  the 
corroborating  evidence  of  other  churches,  which  were  simi- 
larly circumstanced.  Phccbadius  and  Eucherius,  the  latter 
of  whom  had  been  translated  from  the  Spanish  to  the  Galli- 
can  Church,  were  members  of  the  latter;  and  both  these 
churches  had  been  exempt,  not  less  than  the  African,  from 
the  effects  of  Diocletian's  persecution.  Both  these  early 
fathers,  Phabadius  and  Eucherius,  attest  the  authenticity  of 
the  contested  passage  :  the  testimony  of  the  former  is  entitled 
to  the  greater  respect,  as  he  boldly  withstood  the  authority 
of  Hosius,  whose  influence  tended  to  extend  the  Arian  opin- 
ions in  the  Western  World,  at  the  very  period  in  which  he 
cited  the  contested  passage.     In  addition  to  these  witnesses, 


108  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.  7. 

we  have,  in  the  testimony  of  INIaximus,  the  evidence  of  a  per- 
son who  visited  the  African  Church ;  and  who  there  becom- 
ing acquainted  with  the  disputed  passage,  wrote  a  tract  for 
the  purpose  of  employing  it  against  the  Arians.  The  testi- 
mony of  these  witnesses  forms  a  valuable  accession  to  that 
of  the  African  Church. 

"  5.  We  may  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Church 
in  confirmation  of  the  African  Churches.  Not  to  insist  at 
present  on  positive  testimonies,  the  disputed  verse,  though  not 
supported  by  the  text  of  the  original  Greek,  is  clearly  sup- 
ported by  its  context.  The  latter  does  not  agree  so  well  with 
itself,  as  it  does  with  the  testimony  of  the  African  Church. 
The  grammatical  structure,  which  is  imperfect  in  itself,  di- 
rectly recovers  its  original  integrity  on  being  filled  up  with 
the  passage  which  is  offered  on  the  testimony  of  this  witness. 
Thus  far  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Church  is  plainly  cor- 
roborative of  that  of  the  Western. 

"  6.  In  fine,  as  Origen  and  Eusebius  have  both  thought 
that  one  church  becomes  a  sufficient  voucher  for  one  even  of 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Canon ;  and  as  Eusebius  has  borne 
the  most  unqualified  evidence  to  the  integrity  and  purity  of 
the  Church  of  Africa,  we  can  have  no  just  grounds  for  re- 
jecting its  testimony,  on  a  single  verse  of  Scripture.  And 
when  we  consider  the  weight  of  the  argument  arising  in  fa- 
vor of  this  verse  from  the  internal  evidence ;  how  forcibly 
the  subject  of  it  was  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  St.  John ; 
and  how  amply  it  is  attested  by  that  external  evidence  which 
is  antecedent,  though  deficient  in  that  which  is  subsequent  to 
the  times  of  the  Apostles,  our  conviction  must  rise  that  this 
passage  is  authentic.  But  when  we  add  the  ver^^  obvious 
solution  which  this  want  of  subsequent  evidence  receives 
from  the  probability  that  Eusebius  suppressed  this  passage  in 
the  edition  which  he  revised  ;  and  which  became  the  received 


NOLAN.  109 

text  of  the  Church,  which  remained  in  subjection  to  the  Ari- 
ans  for  the  forty  years  that  succeeded  ;  I  trust  nothing  further 
can  be  wanting  to  convince  any  ingenuous  mind  that  1  John 
V.  7  really  proceeded  from  St.  John  the  Evangelist."  * 

The  notes  of  the  author  on  this  passage,  which  I  cannot 
quote,  add  some  additional  weight  to  his  argument,  and  throw 
some  light  on  parts  of  his  text,  which  to  general  readers  must 
appear  obscure :  but  I  cannot  help  again  saying,  that  to  main- 
tain the  purity  of  the  text  of  Scripture  by  the  testimony  of 
any  church  is  dangerous  ground.  To  refer  to  confessions 
of  faith  in  proof  of  what  must  have  been  the  reading  of  the 
sacred  text  while  the  readings  of  MSS.  of  the  Scriptures 
preserved  by  that  very  church  ai-e  not  in  unison  with  the 
confession,  is  a  very  clums}'  mode  of  establishing  the  point. 
That  Eusebius  possessed  the  power,  or  the  disposition,  to 
alter  the  sacred  text ;  or  that  any  alteration  made  by  him 
should  have  found  its  way  into  all  existing  Greek  MSS.,  is 
altogether  improbable,  or  at  least  destitute  of  any  adequate 
support. 

Although  I  consider  that  Mr.  Nolan  fails  in  maintaining 
the  common  reading  in  1  John  v.  7,  and  in  supporting  his 
hypotheses  generally,  it  is  due  to  him  to  say,  that  his  work 
contains  much  that  is  worthy  of  attention  from  the  biblical 
scholar,  and  is  written  throughout  in  a  very  commendable 
spirit  of  moderation  and  candor.  That  I  may  not  be  consid- 
ered as  keeping  back  anything  which  belongs  to  the  other 
side  of  the  question  from  what  I  espouse,  I  extract  the  fol- 
lowing note,  in  which  Mr.  Nolan  gives  some  account  of  the 
reading  of  the  ancient  French  and  Waldensian  versions. 

"  Of  the  old  versions  which  have  been  published  in  French, 
two  were  made  by  the  Waldenses ;  vid.  Le  Long,  Bibl.  Sacr. 
Tom.  I.  p.  313,  col.  2.  e.  Morland  on  the  Church  of  the  Val- 

*  Pp.  293-306. 


110  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

leys,  p.  14.  But  one  copy  of  this  version  has  fallen  into  my 
hands,  which  was  printed  at  the  native  place  of  Peter  "Waldo ; 
*Au  Lyon,  I'an  de  grace  1521.'  The  following  is  the  read- 
ing of  1  Joh.  V.  7,  8.  fol.  clxiv.  b.  '  Trois  clioses  sont  qui 
donnent  tesmoing  au  ciel,  le  pere  le  filz  et  le  sainct  esperit, 
et  ces  trois  sont  une  chose.  Et  trois  choses  qui  donnent  tes- 
moing en  terre,  esperit  eaue  et  sang.'  This  testimony  would 
be  of  little  importance  until  the  character  of  the  translation 
was  investigated  by  a  comparison  with  other  French  Ver- 
sions and  the  old  Italic  and  modern  Latin  Vulgate  ;  were  it 
not  for  the  following  considerations  :  (L)  It  differs  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate;  as  it  reads  'lefilz'  for'Verbura.'  (2.)  It 
agrees  in  this  reading  with  an  ancient  Confession  of  Faith, 
used  by  the  Waldenses.  Leger,  Hist.  Gen.  des  Eglis.  Vau- 
dois,  P.  I.  ch.  viii.  p.  50.  ed.  Leyd.  1669.  Eschant.  v.  de 
la  Doctrine  des  Vaudois,  contenant  la  fidele  traduction  de 
I'Exposition  qu'ils  ont  donne  au  Symbole  des  Apotres  —  oil 
ils  en  prouvent  tous  les  Articles  par  passages  expres  de  la  S. 
JEcriture.  —  Lequel  Dieu  est  un  Trinite,  comme  it  est  ecrit 
en  la  Loy,  '  O  Israel  ecoute,'  &c.  —  Et  S.  Jean,  ^11  y  en  a 
trois  qui  rcndent  temoinage  au  ciel,  le  Pere,  le  Fils,  et  le  aSI 
Esprit,  et  ces  trois  sont  un.'  The  original  of  this  passage,  as 
far  as  I  can  gather  from  M.  Leger,  may  be  found  in  le  Sieur 
du  Perrin,  Hist,  des  Vaudois  et  Albigeois,  chap.  v.  p.  201. 
sqq.  The  proof  appears  to  me  to  be  so  far  complete,  that 
this  passage  was  adopted  in  the  authorized  text  used  by  the 
Waldenses.  The  following  considerations  seem  adequate  to 
evince  that  it  existed  in  the  Latin  Version  revised  by  St. 
Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  who  published  the  old  translation  which 
prevailed  in  the  Italic  Diocese.  (1.)  In  reading  '  Filius,'  it 
agrees  with  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  against  the  common  tes- 
timony of  the  Modern  Vulgate,  and  the  Latin  Fathers ;  vid. 
infr.  p.  291.  u.  sqq.     (2.)   St.  Eusebius  might  have  hence 


OXLEE.  Ill 

adopted  this  reading,  as  he  has  adopted  other  readings  from 
those  fathers,  in  his  revisal:  vid.  infr.  p.  146.  n.  (3.)  The 
French  version  agrees  with  the  old  Itah'c  in  possessing  other 
readings  derived  from  the  same  source :  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
we  find,  instead  of  'ne  inducas  nos  in  temptationem,'  Lot. 
Vulg.,  *  ne  nous  mene  mye  en  temptacion,  cest  a  dire  ne  souf- 
fre  mye  que  nous  syonz  temptez':  conformably  to  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian :  vid.  infr.  p.  330.  n.  (4.)  The  disputed  pas- 
sage, as  read  in  the  Waldensian  Confession,  and  the  French 
Vei-sion,  is  accommodated  to  the  state  of  religious  opinion 
which  prevailed  in  the  age  of  St.  Eusebius.  By  changing 
Verbum  to  Filius,  in  vers.  7.  the  Sabellian  evasion  of  the 
passage  was  obviated :  vid.  infr.  p.  539.  n.  By  cutting  off 
'  et  hi  tres  (in)  unum  sunt,'  in  vers.  8.  the  Arian  evasion  of 
the  passsage  was  equally  obviated.  For  this  phrase  fur- 
nished some  countenance  to  the  notion  of  those  heretics  who 
asserted  that  'unum  sunt'  signified  an  unity,  not  of  sub- 
stance, but  of  will  and  testimony.  As  these  are  coincidences 
which  the  AValdenses  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  created,  I 
thence  conclude,  that  1  John  v.  7.  not  only  existed  in  the  re- 
visal of  the  old  Italic  Version  made  by  Eusebius  Vercellen- 
sis ;  but  that  the  peculiar  reading  of  this  text,  which  is  found 
in  the  French  Version,  and  which  has  excited  M.  Porson's 
notice,  has  been  thus  remotely  adopted  from  St.  Cyprian : 
vid.  Porson.  Lett,  to  Trav.  p.  377.  It  thus  easily  made  its 
way  into  Wicklef's  translation,  through  the  Lollards,  who 
were  disciples  of  the  Waldenses ;  vid.  Pors.  ibid.  Mori.  ub. 
supr.  p.  184."* 

The  work  of  Mr.  Nolan  occasioned  a  controversy  in  the 
Christian  Remembrancer  for  1822,  between  that  gentleman 
and  the  Rev.  John  Oxlee.     It  was  carried  on,  as  discussions 

•  Pref.  pp.  xviii.,  xix. 


112  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

of  this  nature  in  periodical  works  usually  are,  with  a  good 
deal  of  warmth,  but  without  the  names  of  the  parties  ap- 
pearing. It  led  at  last  to  the  publication  of  the  following 
pamphlet :  "  Three  Letters  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Frederic 
Nolan,  Vicar  of  Prittlewell,  on  his  erroneous  Criticisms  and 
Mis-statements  in  the  Christian  Remembrancer,  relative  to 
the  Text  of  the  Heavenly  Witnesses  ;  in  which  are  contained, 
also.  Strictures  on  the  Vindication  of  the  spurious  Passage 
by  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's :  together  with  a  new  Transla- 
tion of  the  Genuine  Text,  proposed  and  defended  from  every 
Cavil.  By  the  Rev.  John  Oxlee,  Rector  of  Scawton,  and 
Curate  of  Stonegrave."     York.  1825. 

At  present  I  shall  postpone  any  notice  of  the  debate  with 
Dr.  Burgess,  till  we  come  to  that  period  of  the  controversy 
in  which  the  Bishop  is  more  particularly  concerned,  when 
Mr.  Oxlee  again  appears ;  nor  shall  I  say  anything  of  the 
style  in  which  Mr.  Oxlee  has  treated  his  opponent.  His 
language  is  that  of  unmeasured  severity  and  contempt.  To 
this  he  appears  to  have  been  provoked  by  some  tilings  said 
by  Mr.  Nolan  ;  but  scarcely  anything  can  justify  the  language 
which  he  has,  in  several  places,  employed.  He  writes,  how- 
ever, like  a  man  thoroughly  at  home  in  the  whole  debate ;  to 
whom  the  vast  range  both  of  Oriental  and  Occidental  learning 
is  familiar.  He  meets  the  views  of  his  opponent  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  African  Church,  and  likewise  his  reasoning  on 
the  French  and  "Waldensian  versions,  in  the  most  triumphant 
manner,  leaving  not  the  shadow  of  argument  unanswered. 
The  reasonings  for  the  authenticity  of  the  prologue  to  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  on  which  so  much  stress  has  been  laid,  he 
also  veiy  ably  refutes.  In  his  third  letter  he  brings  forward 
a  new  translation  of  the  genuine  text,  which  he  endeavors  to 
defend  and  illustrate.  Mr.  Oxlee,  like  many  other  ingenious 
and  able  men,  succeeds  better  in  overthrowing  the  system  of 


OXLEE.  113 

others  than  in  sustaining  his  own.  On  a  passage,  however, 
which  involves  so  many  difficulties,  and  which  is  of  hard  in- 
terpretation, independently  of  what  may  be  regarded  as  the 
true  reading,  it  becomes  us  to  be  modest,  whether  in  object- 
ing to  the  views  of  others  or  maintaining  our  own.  I  am 
sorry  I  cannot  give  Mr.  Oxlee's  arguments  in  support  of  his 
new  translation  at  full  length ;  but  it  is  due  to  him  to  give 
the  principal  passage. 

"  The  connection  of  what  is  now  the  eighth,  with  the  sixth 
verse,  is  so  close  that  there  is  no  understanding  their  import 
without  furnishing  the  whole  context.  This  I  shall  do,  ac- 
cording to  the  Alexandrine  Manuscript,  which  is  supported 
in  its  reading  of  the  sixth  verse,  not  only  by  Cyrillus  Alex- 
andrinus,  but  by  the  later  Syriac,  the  Armenian,  the  Cop- 
tic, and  the  -^Ethiopic  versions.  It  is  here  given  with  the 
amended  translation  subjoined.  Ovtos  icrnv  6  eXdoov  8ia  CdaTos 
Koi  aifiaros  koi  nvevjxaTos,  Irjaovs  Xpiaros  '  ovk  iv  tw  vSart  fiovov, 
aWa  Iv  Tw  vSari  koI  ev  ra  TTvevjiaTi,  •  koi  to  nveVfid  icrri  to  jiapTvpovv, 
OTi  TO  TTvevfid  iariv  f)  dXi'jdfta.  "On  rpfls  flcnv  oi  papTvpovvrts,  to 
iTPevpa,  Koi  to  v8a>p,  Koi  to  aijia  •  Ka\  oi  Tpfls  (Is  to  iv  elaiv.  — '  This 
is  he  who  came  by  water,  and  blood,  and  spirit,  Jesus  Christ ; 
not  with  the  water  only,  but  with  the  water  and  with  the 
spirit :  and  the  spirit  is  that  which  beareth  witness ;  for  the 
spirit  is  the  truth.  For  there  are  three  who  attest  or  bear 
witness,  the  spirit,  and  tbe  water,  and  the  blood ;  and  the 
three  are  for  one  thing.'  The  Armenian  version  of  the  sixth 
verse  is  as  follows :  — '  This  is  he  who  came  with  water,  and 
with  spirit,  and  with  blood,  Jesus  Christ;  not  with  water 
only;  but  with  blood  and  water:  and  the  spirit  is  that  which 
beareth  witness ;  for  the  spirit  is  truth.'  The  Coptic  reads 
thus:  —  'This  is  he  who  came  by  water,  and  blood,  and 
spirit,  Jesus  the  Christ :  not  with  the  water  alone,  but  with 
the  water  and  the  blood ;  and  the  spirit  beareth  witness,  for 


114  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

the  spirit  is  the  truth.'  The  Philoxenian,  or  later  Syriac 
version,  as  edited  by  Professor  White,  agrees  with  the  Cop- 
tic. The  JEthiopic  version  of  this  verse,  in  its  present  cor- 
rujit  state,  is  evidently  ungrammatical,  and  in  the  London 
Polyglot  very  inaccurately  translated;  but  by  omitting  the 
prefix,  Beth,  before  the  repetition  of  the  term,  Manfes,  Spirit, 
it  will  then,  with  the  context,  yield  the  following  grammatical 
and  consistent  sense  :  — '  And  who  is  he  that  overcometh  the 
world,  except  him  who  believes  that  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God ;  Wacama,  and  that  he  came  by  water,  and  by 
spirit,  and  by  blood,  Jesus  Christ ;  and  not  by  water  only, 
but  by  water  and  by  blood  ;  and  it  is  the  spirit  which  beareth 
witness.' —  That  St.  Cyrill,  in  the  place  above  alleged,  read 
the  verse  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Alexandrine  Manuscript,  is 
demonstrable  from  this  circumstance,  that,  though  he  is  made 
to  cite  it  first  as  it  stands  in  the  generality  of  the  modern 
Greek  manuscripts;  yet  he  soon  after  subjoins,  AXXa  koi  iv 
alfxari  Koi  iv  TTvexniari ;  But,  also,  with  hlood,  and  with  spirit ; 
which  is  intelligible  only  on  the  supposition,  that  he  had  in 
the  verse  all  the  three  terms,  water,  blood,  and  spirit,  as  they 
appear  in  that  manuscript.  It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  too, 
that  in  the  text  of  the  Witnesses,  instead  of  "On  rpels  flaiv  oi 
fxapTvpovvTes,  For  there  are  three  who  bear  witness  ;  he  has,  "On 
rpeis  papTvpovcTL,  For  three  bear  witness  ;  which,  on  being  com- 
pared with  the  Latin  version  of  the  same  verse.  Quia  tres 
testimonium  perhibent,  in  the  tract.  Be  Baptismo  Hceretico- 
rum ;  w^arrants  the  conclusion,  that,  in  some  of  the  best 
Greek  manuscripts  of  those  early  times,  this  reading  was 
prevalent  which  Ave  now  find  in  St.  Cyrill.  So  far  as  con- 
cerns the  New  Translation,  it  is  perfectly  immaterial  which 
of  the  two  readings  should  be  preferred."  * 

The  critical,  grammatical,  and   theological   objections  to 
*  Oxlee's  Letters,  pp.  86  -  88. 


OXLEE.  115 

this  version,  Mr.  Oxlee  endeavors  to  meet.  With  what  suc- 
cess must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader  of  his 
pamphlet. 

The  learned  author  of  this  reply  to  Mr.  Nolan  possesses 
very  considerable  acquaintance  with  several  of  the  Oriental 
languages.  It  is  evident  both  from  this  pamphlet,  and  from 
his  "  Three  Letters  to  the  Archbishop  of  Cashel,  respecting 
his  Grace's  Apocryphal  Publications,"  that  he  has  a  profound 
knowledge  of  the  Rabbinical  writings.  He  is  also  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  Armenian  version,  which  is  rather  an  un- 
common attainment  in  this  country.  The  following  passage 
contains  valuable  information  respecting  the  reading  in  1 
John  V.  7  of  the  MSS.  of  this  version,  and  its  present  state. 

"  There  is  no  trace  of  it  in  the  Armenian  version,  which, 
as  we  now  have  it  handed  down  to  us,  was  made  from  Greek 
manuscripts  of  the  Origenian  or  Eusebian  recension  at  Con- 
stantinople, about  the  year  432,  during  the  episcopate,  and 
with  the  liberal  assistance  of  the  Constantinopolitan  patri- 
arch, Maximianus.  In  the  first  edition,  indeed,  of  the  Arme- 
nian Scriptures  by  Uscan,  printed  at  Amsterdam  in  1666, 
the  text  of  the  Heavenly  Witnesses  is  inserted ;  but  for  this, 
as  well  as  many  other  passages,  Uscan  has  been  severely 
handled  by  succeeding  editors ;  as  having  attempted  to  cor- 
rupt the  text  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  contrary  to  the  authori- 
ty of  the  Armenian  manuscripts.  In  the  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  printed  at  Venice  in  1789,  both  the  Earthly  and 
the  Heavenly  Witnesses  are  included  in  a  parenthesis ;  with 
the  annotation  in  the  margin,  That  thus  much  is  otherwise  in 
the  manuscripts.  Then,  again,  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  in 
their  Advertisement  to  the  reader,  where  they  take  occasion 
to  explain  their  use  of  the  parenthesis,  the  editors  further 
inform  us  that,  in  respect  of  the  passage  under  dispute,  all 
their  manuscripts,  above  ten  in  number,  in  conformity  with 


116  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

the  old  Greek  text,  as  well  as  with  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
versions,  exhibit  the  text  in  this  short  form.  Because  the 
Spirit  indeed  is  truth.  These  three  there  are  who  bear  testi- 
mony, the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  hlood ;  and  the  three 
are  one.  If  we  admit  the  testimony,  &c.  That  what  was  thus 
wanted  in  the  great  majority  of  the  manuscripts,  and  with- 
out any  tendency  to  illustrate  the  context,  they  had  included 
within  a  parenthesis,  as  wholly  obstructing  the  sense  of  St. 
John.  In  the  critical  edition,  however,  of  the  whole  Bible 
printed  at  Venice  in  1805,  the  spurious  passage  is  wholly 
omitted ;  and  the  text  restored,  as  above,  according  to  the 
reading  of  the  manuscripts.  Since  very  few  of  my  country- 
men can  boast  of  possessing  this  edition  of  the  Armenian 
Scriptures,  and  still  fewer,  perhaps,  of  the  ability  to  read  it, 
I  shall  be  doing  probably  an  acceptable  service  to  the  Eng- 
lish scholar,  if  I  ti'anslate  the  whole  annotation  of  the  edi- 
tors on  the  place,  which  is  as  follows  :  — '  Here,  as  well  as  in 
many  other  places,  Uscan  hath  interpolated  and  altered  the 
Armenian  text  from  the  Latin  version,  in  this  manner.  Who 
testifieth  that  Christ  is  truth.  For  there  are  three  who  bear 
witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are  three  which  bear  wit- 
ness on  earth,  spirit,  water,  and  blood ;  and  the  three  are  one. 
If  we  admit  the  testimony  of  men,  &c.  But  out  of  about 
eighteen  manuscript  copies  that  we  have,  ancient  as  well  as 
modern,  not  to  mention  two  commentaries  of  universal  re- 
ception, one  alone,  which  was  transcribed  in  the  year  1656, 
about  ten  years  before  the  printed  edition  of  Uscan,  exhibits 
the  text  in  this  form.  For  the  Spirit  indeed  is  the  truth. 
These  are  the  three  tcho  testify  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three  are  one.  And  there  are 
three  which  testify  on  earth,  the  spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood. 
If  we  admit  the  testimony  of  men,  &c.     Though  there  was 


HALES.  117 

also  another  manuscript  copy,  which  on  the  surface  had  an 
equal  and  similar  reading  with  this ;  yet  the  original  or  first 
reading  had  evidently  been  erased,  and  the  intermediate  space 
thus  exactly  filled  up  in  smaller  characters  by  a  more  recent 
scribe.  But  all  the  rest  of  our  manuscripts,  of  whatever  de- 
scription, equally,  and  in  accordance  with  a  multitude  of  the 
more  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  uniformly  exhibit  the  text 
according  to  what  we  have  found  it  our  duty  to  give  in  the 
foregoing  place.'  —  Thus  in  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  Armenians  have  happily  rescued  the  printed  text 
of  their  Scriptures  from  this  audacious  and  manifest  corrup- 
tion of  the  language  of  St.  John  ;  and  I  have  little  doubt, 
that,  could  the  authorized  English  version  be  again  duly  re- 
vised, the  falsified  text  of  which  we  complain  would  experi- 
ence the  same  fate.  In  the  interim,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  not  to  be  more  culpably 
negligent  than  others  in  vindicating  the  purity  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures ;  and,  if  they  cannot  immediately  remove  from 
their  version  the  spurious  passage,  at  least  not  to  be  afi'aid  to 
give  publicity  to  the  fraud."  * 

To  few  writers  of  the  present  age  is  the  theological  and 
critical  reader  more  indebted  than  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hales,  of 
Trinity  College,  Dublin.  His  "  New  Analysis  of  Chronolo- 
gy," which  appeared  in  1811  and  following  years,  contains 
an  immense  mass  of  most  valuable  learning,  not  merely  re- 
lating to  chronology,  but  to  all  matters  of  a  biblical  nature. 
In  the  second  volume  of  this  work,  pp.  905,  906,  he  has  given 
his  opinion,  that  the  verse  in  question  is  spurious.  Six  years 
after  this,  however.  Dr.  Hales  declared  himself  "  at  length 
perfectly  satisfied  of  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the 
disputed  clause,  from  a  more  critical  view  of  the  whole  of  the 
evidence,  external  and  internal,  for  and  against  it." 

*  Pp.  130-132. 


118  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

The  work  in  which  this  second  opinion  is  avowed  is  his 
"  Faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel," 
&c.  London,  1818.  2  vols.  8vo.  Second  thoughts  are  some- 
times best,  and  the  learned  Doctor  had  an  undoubted  right  to 
change  his  mind,  on  obtaining  another  view  of  the  evidence 
from  what  he  formerly  had.  But  I  cannot  help  expressing 
my  surprise  that  a  man  of  the  cool  and  accurate  mind  of  Dr. 
Hales  should  avow  so  strongly  his  entire  satisfaction  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  passage,  without  being  able  to  place  the 
evidence  on  which  that  opinion  is  founded  more  satisfactorily 
before  his  readers. 

In  the  second-  volume  of  this  learned  work  on  the  Trinity, 
(for  learned  it  is,  though  I  cannot  assent  to  various  parts  of 
it,)  there  is  a  dissertation  of  one  hundred  pages  on  the  dis- 
puted verse.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion  contained  in 
it,  Dr.  Hales  travels  over  a  great  part  of  the  ground  with- 
out saying  anything  new,  or  placing  the  old  argument  in 
a  more  forcible  light.  He  also  commits  some  very  con- 
siderable mistakes  in  parts  of  his  statement.  Speaking  of 
Griesbach's  account  of  the  Greek  MSS.  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  says : — 

"  Deducting  several  manuscripts  that  are  either  mutilated 
or  imperfect  in  this  place,  he  counts  146  that  omit  the  clause, 
as  collated  either  by  himself,  or  by  others ;  namely,  Simon, 
Wetstein,  Matthai,  Blanchini,  Birch,  Lamy,  Porson,  Marsh, 
Clarke,  Goldhagen,  Sinner,  and  Travis ;  and  he  thus  closes 
the  account : 

" '  I  may  venture  to  assert  confidently,  that  there  is  no 
Cheek  manuscript,  extant  in  Europe,  in  which  the  seventh 
verse  is  read.  For  if  such  was  anywhere  found,  a  treasure 
so  rare  and  desirable  would  have  been  brought  to  light  long 
ago.' 

"But  of  these  146  manuscripts,  there  are  no  more  than 


HALES.  119 

two  of  the  oldest  class,  namely,  the  Alexandrine  A,  and  the 
Vatican  B,  that  omit  the  clause ;  for  the  Ephrem  C  is  muti- 
lated in  this  place,  and  the  Cambridge  D,  the  Laudian  E, 
and  Coisliniau  F,  do  not  contain  the  Catholic  Epistles.  The 
rest  are  comparatively  modern ;  none,  probably,  older  than 
the  ninth  century,  and  many  of  much  later  date. 

"  The  entire  number  of  manuscripts,  wholly  or  partly  col- 
lated hitherto,  does  not  much  exceed  400 ;  and  these  bear 
but  a  small  proportion  to  those  that  have  not  .been  collated 
in  the  several  libraries  of  Europe.  There  are  many  manu- 
scripts in  uncial  letters,  in  the  different  libraries  of  Italy, 
which  have  never  been  collated.  Of  the  numbers  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  only  thirty-four  have  been  collated.  And 
since  the  death  of  Asseman,  the  celebrated  Orientalist  and 
Librarian  of  the  Vatican,  the  difficulty  of  access  to  the  man- 
uscripts is  so  great  as  to  make  it  almost  impossible  for  a  critic 
to  derive,  at  present,  any  advantage  from  them.  It  is  strictly 
forbidden,  not  only  to  copy,  but  even  to  collate  them.  In  the 
year  1783,  the  Abb^  Spoletti  presented  a  memorial  to  the 
Pope,  requesting  permission  to  print  the  whole  of  the  cele- 
brated Codex  Vaticanus.  He  was  referred,  according  to  the 
usual  routine,  to  the  Inquisition ;  whose  permission  was  re- 
fused, under  the  plea,  that  '  the  Codex  Vaticanus  differed 
from  the  Vulgate,  and  might,  therefore,  if  made  hnoicn  to  the 
public,  be  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  Christian  i-e- 
ligion.' 

"  In  the  Florence  Library  alone  are  at  least  a  thousand 
Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  two  of  which  are 
of  the  Apocalypse ;  of  these  only  twenty-four  have  been  col- 
lated. 

"  In  the  Royal  Library  of  Paris  are  202  manuscripts,  of 
which  only  49  have  been  collated.  See  Marsh's  Notes  to 
Michaelis,  Vol.  II.  pp.  G42  -  647. 


120  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

"  Griesbach,  therefore,  has  hazarded  an  unguarded  and 
unfounded  assertion,  even  with  respect  to  the  libraries  of 
Europe.  And  how  many  ancient  and  valuable  manuscripts 
may  lie  buried  in  the  libraries  of  Constantinople,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  judge.  That  there  are  many,  indeed,  appears  from 
the  accounts  given  by  the  Abbe  Toderini,  in  his  Letteratura 
Turchesca,  published  at  Venice  in  1787,  in  3  vols.  8vo.  The 
Pope  and  the  Mufti  are  equally  adverse  to  the  publication  of 
hidden  '  treasure  so  rare  and  so  desirable '  to  the  Christian 
world."  * 

Passing  over  other  mistakes  in  this  passage,  there  is  one 
so  perfectly  absurd,  that  it  is  surprising  Dr.  Hales  should  not 
have  perceived  it.  He  gravely  asserts,  that  "  in  the  Florence 
Library  alone  there  are  at  least  a  thousand  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament."  And  he  as  gravely  refers  to  Michaelis  for 
this  fact.  It  is  surprising  it  did  not  occur  to  Dr.  Hales,  that 
it  is  not  generally  believed  that  there  are  a  thousand  manu- 
scripts of  the  Greek  Testament  in  existence  in  all  the  world. 
The  truth  is,  Michaelis,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  is  speak- 
ing of  Greek  manuscripts  in  general,  which  Dr.  Hales,  by  an 
unfortunate  mistake,  applies  to  the  New  Testament  in  par- 
ticular. The  whole  of  his  hypothetical  argument,  therefore, 
is  at  once  swept  away.  Instead  of  there  being  many  uncol- 
lated  manuscripts,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  there  are 
comparatively  few  which  have  not  been  examined  for  evi- 
dence on  this  very  passage ;  and  all,  with  the  exceptions  that 
are  so  well  known,  and  so  little  regarded,  are  against  it. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  his  dissertation,  he  expresses 
his  confidence,  that  "  it  will  be  found  exliaustive  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  set  the  conti'oversy  at  rest  in  future."  f  In  this 
the  learned  Doctor  has  already  found  himself  to  be  mistaken. 
The  controversy  still  goes  on,  and  must  continue  to  do  so, 

»  Vol.  n.  pp.  136  - 137.  T  P-  226. 


MARSH.  121 

till  evidence  is  adduced  of  a  very  different  kind,  in  favor  of 
the  verse,  from  what  has  ever  yet  been  brought  forward. 

The  next  work  I  have  to  mention  takes  the  opposite  side 
from  Dr.  Hales,  and  is  in  all  respects  worthy  of  the  critical 
learning  and  acumen  of  its  author.  His  former  labors  ou 
the  subject  have  been  already  noticed.  In  the  Sixth  Part 
of  Dr.  Marsh's  (now  Bishop  of  Peterborough)  Course  of 
Theological  Lectures,  as  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divin- 
ity, which  appeared  in  1822,  his  Lordship  again  refers  to  this 
controversy,  as  affecting  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  shows,  as  I  conceive,  with  considerable  force  of  argument 
and  ingenuity,  "  that  if  it  be  true  in  regard  to  the  disputed 
passage,  that  the  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  which  have  de- 
scended to  the  present  age,  with  the  works  of  the  ancient 
Greek  fathers,  and  the  manuscripts  of  the  ancient  versions, 
the  oldest  of  the  Latin  version  not  excepted,  have  descended 
to  us  in  a  mutilated  state,  there  is  an  end  to  that  security 
which  is  derived  from  their  mutual  agreement,  for  the  integ- 
rity of  the  New  Testament  in  all  other  places.  And  we  are 
brought  at  length  into  this  dilemma:  either  to  relinquish  a 
part,  or  abandon  the  whole." 

After  noticing  its  absence  from  all  the  ancient  Greek 
manusci-ipts  and  fathers,  he  thus  endeavors  to  account  for 
its  introduction.  "  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  the  cel- 
ebrated Latin  father  Augustin,  who  wrote  ten  treatises  on 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  in  all  of  which  we  seek  in  vain 
for  the  seventh  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter,  was  induced,  in 
his  controversy  witli  Maximin,  to  compose  a  gloss  upon  the 
eighth  verse.  Augustin  gives  it  professedly  as  a  gloss  upon 
the  words  of  the  eighth  verse,  and  shows,  by  his  own  reason- 
ing, that  the  seventh  verse  did  not  then  exist.  The  high 
character  of  Augustin  in  the  Latin  Church  soon  gave  06' 
6 


122  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN   V.  7. 

lebrity  to  his  gloss ;  and,  in  a  short  time,  it  was  generally 
adopted.  It  appeared  indeed  under  different  forms ;  but  it 
■was  still  the  gloss  of  Augustin,  though  variously  modified. 
The  gloss  having  once  obtained  credit  in  the  Latin  Church, 
the  possessors  of  Latin  manuscripts  began  to  note  it  in  the 
margin,  by  the  side  of  tlie  eighth  verse.  Hence  the  oldest 
of  those  Latin  manuscripts  which  have  the  passage  in  the 
margin,  have  it  in  a  different  hand  from  that  of  the  text.  In 
later  manusci'ipts  we  find  margin  and  text  in  the  same  hand ; 
for  transcribers  did  not  venture  immediately  to  move  it  into 
the  body  of  the  text,  though  in  some  it  is  interlined,  but  in- 
terlined by  a  later  hand.  After  the  eighth  century  the 
insertion  became  general.  For  Latin  manuscripts  written 
after  that  period  have  generally,  though  not  always,  the  pas- 
sage in  the  body  of  the  text.  Further,  when  the  seventh 
verse  made  its  first  appearance  in  the  Latin  manuscripts,  it 
appeared  in  as  many  different  forms  as  there  were  forms  to 
the  gloss  upon  the  eighth  verse.  And  though  it  now  pre- 
cedes the  eighth  verse,  it  folloxoed  the  eighth  verse  at  its  first 
insertion,  as  a  gloss  would  naturally  follow  the  text  upon 
which  it  was  made.  It  is  not,  therefore,  matter  of  mere  con- 
jecture, that  the  seventh  verse  originated  in  a  Latin  gloss 
upon  the  eighth  verse :  it  is  an  historical  fact,  supported  by 
evidence  which  cannot  be  resisted. 

"  But  many  centuries  elapsed  before  the  passage  was  ex- 
hibited in  Greek.  The  first  Greek  writer  who  has  given  it 
is  Manuel  Calecas,  who  lived  as  late  as  the  fourteenth  centu- 
ry. And  we  need  not  wonder  at  finding  the  passage  in  his 
works,  as  Calecas  was  a  convert  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 
In  the  fifteenth  century  the  passage  was  quoted  by  Bryen- 
nius,  who  was  likewise  so  attached  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
that  he  quoted  other  readings  of  the  Vulgate  which  are  not 
found  in  the  Greek  manuscripts. 


MARSH.  123 

"  At  length,  iA  the  sixteenth  century,  a  Gi'eeJc  manuscript 
of  the  New  Testament  appeared  with  1  John  v.  7,  Its  origi- 
nal appellation  was  Codex  Britannicus :  but  it  is  now  called 
the  Dublin  manuscript.  It  made  its  first  appearance  about 
the  year  1520;  and  that  the  manuscript  had  just  been  written 
when  it  first  appeared  is  highly  probable,  because  it  appeared 
at  a  critical  juncture,  and  its  appearance  answered  a  particu- 
lar purpose.  But  whether  written  for  the  occasion  or  not, 
it  could  not  have  been  written  ve7-i/  Jong  before  the  sixteenth 
century.  For  this  manuscript  has  the  Latin  chapters,  though 
the  Kf^akaia  of  Euf:ebius  are  likewise  noted.  Now  the  Latin 
chapters  were  foreign  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  Church,  be- 
fore the  introduction  of  printed  editions,  in  which  the  Latin 
chapters  were  adopted,  as  well  for  the  Greek  as  for  the  Latin 
Testament. 

" The  Dublin  manuscript,  therefore,  if  not  written 

for  the  purpose  to  which  it  was  applied  in  the  third  edition 
of  Erasmus,  could  hardly  have  been  written  more  than  fifty 
yeai'S  before.  And  how  widely  those  critics  have  erred  in 
their  conjectures,  who  have  supposed  that  it  was  written  so 
early  as  the  twelfth  century,  appears  from  the  fact,  that  the 
Latin  chapters  were  not  ini'ented  till  the  thirteenth  century. 

"  But  the  influence  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Dublin  manuscript  is  most  conspicuous  in  the 
text  of  that  manuscript,  which  is  a  servile  imitation  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate.  It  will  be  suflicient  to  mention  how  it  fol- 
lows the  Vulgate  at  the  place  in  question.  It  not  only  agrees 
with  the  Vulgate  in  the  insertion  of  the  seventh  verse :  it 
follows  the  Vulgate  also  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  verse,  having 
Xpto-To'f,  where  all  other  Greek  manuscripts  have  u-vevfia :  and 
in  the  eighth  verse  it  omits  the  final  clause,  which  had  7ierer 
been  omitted  in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  and  was  not  omitted 
even  in  the  Latin  manuscripts  before  the  thirteenth  century. 


124  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

Such  is  the  character  of  that  solitary  manuscript,  which  is 
opposed  to  the  united  evidence  of  all  former  manuscripts, 
including  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Codex  Alexandri- 
nus."  * 

A  singular  work,  in  which  this  controversy  is  introduced, 
appeared  in  1822,  under  the  technical  title  of  *' Pala?oromai- 
ca :  or  Historical  and  Philological  Disquisitions :  inquiring 
■whether  the  Hellenistic  style  is  not  Latin-Greek  ?  whether 
the  many  new  words  in  the  Elzevir  Greek  Testament  are 
not  formed  from  the  Latin  ?  and  whether  the  hypothesis, 
that  the  Greek  Text  of  many  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament 
is  a  translation  or  re-translation  from  the  Latin,  seems  not 
to  elucidate  numerous  passages :  to  account  for  the  different 
Recensions :  and  to  explain  many  Phenomena  hitherto  inex- 
plicable to  Biblical  Critics  ?  " 

The  author  of  this  volume,  who  w'as  long  concealed,  and 
is  not  yet,  I  believe,  generally  known,  was  the  Rev.  John 
Black,  Minister  of  Coylton,  in  the  South  of  Scotland,  and 
Author  of  the  Life  and  Translation  of  Tasso.  It  would 
scarcely  be  supposed  that  the  clergyman  of  a  small  and  ob- 
scure parish  north  of  the  Tweed  would  be  the  author  of  a 
work  which  has  troubled  both  the  Universities  of  England. 
But  the  translator  of  Tasso  was  no  ordinary  man  both  in 
genius  and  learning. 

In  this  singular  volume,  the  author  endeavors  to  revive 
something  like  the  wild  and  exploded  hypothesis  of  the  Jesuit 
Hardouin,  who  maintained  that  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles 
spoke  Latin,  and  tliat  tlie  Latin  Vulgate  was  the  original  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  anonymous  author  of  the  Pal^o- 
romaica  contends,  that  the  Greek  New  Testament  is  a  trans- 
lation of  a  Latin  original,  the  text  of  which  is  not  preserved 
in  the  Vulgate,  or  any  Latin  version   in  being.     He  also 

»  Lect.  XXVII.  pp.  16-26. 


PALiEOROMAICA.  125 

maintains  that  it  is  a  translation  by  an  unknown  writer, 
imperfectly  acquainted  both  with  Latin  and  Greek. 

The  proofs  of  these  fanciful  and  extravagant  notions,  the 
reader  will  easily  suppose,  must  be  very  extraordinary.  The 
writer  is  by  no  means  deficient  in  ingenuity,  and  has  evident- 
ly spared  no  pains  to  bolster  up  his  theory.  He  argues  from 
the  existence  of  certain  analogous  cases  of  translation  from 
the  Latin,  and  particularly  from  the  Aldine  edition  of  the 
Greek  Simplicius :  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  Latin,  not  Greek,  was  the  prevailing  language  of 
Judaea,  and  other  parts  adjacent :  and  from  the  existence 
of  numerous  Latinisms,  which,  he  thinks,  he  has  discovered 
in  the  New  Testament.  But  it  may  be  proper  to  give  his 
own  analysis  of  his  work. 

"  It  Lonsists,"  he  says,  "  of  six  Disquisitions,  in  the  first  of 
which  he  examines  the  opinion,  that  a  knowledge  of  Greek 
was  general  and  almost  universal  in  the  age  of  the  Apostles ; 
an  opinion  which  is,  perhaps,  proved  to  be  at  once  contrary 
to  probability,  and  contradictory  to  facts.  In  the  second  and 
third  Disquisitions  it  is  submitted,  that,  considering  that  at 
least  one  of  the  Gospels,  and  several  of  Paul's  Epistles,  were 
addressed  to  Latins,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  such 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  should  have  been  sent  to 
them  rather  in  Latin  than  in  Greek.  Whatever  was  the 
primitive  language,  however,  in  which  the  Books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  originally  composed,  and  admitting  that  it 
was  Greek,  it  is  shown  by  numerous  phenomena  that  at  least 
our  Elzevir  text,  or  its  basis,  and,  indeed,  that  of  several 
other  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament  in  the  author's  posses- 
sion, (none  of  them,  however,  so  old  as  our  received  English 
version,)  bear  marks  of  being  a  version  from  the  Latin.  It 
is  submitted,  that  it  seems  not  improbable  that  a  translated 
or  re-translated  text  may  (as  in  Matthew's  Gospel  and  various 


126  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

other  remarkable  instances  which  are  exhibited)  have  sup- 
planted the  original ;  and  that  the  Elzevir  Testament  may, 
like  the  Aldine  Simplicius,  be  a  Greek  re-translation  from 
the  Latin  of  an  original  Greek  work.  This  the  author  pro- 
ceeds to  corroborate,  in  the  fourth  Disquisition,  by  a  list  of 
words,  phrases,  «&;c.,  arranged  into  twelve  different  classes,  all 
(if  he  mistakes  not)  tending  to  establish  that  what  is  named 
the  Hellenistic  style  is  not  Hebrew,  but  Latin-Greek ;  and  all 
seeming  to  support  the  conclusion,  that  the  peculiarities  of 
words  and  style  in  our  Elzevir  or  Greek  Vulgate  are  to  be 
derived  from  a  Latin  original.  In  this  Disquisition  the  ori- 
gin of  whole  cohorts  of  Roman- Greek  words,  which  have 
been  singly  the  subjects  of  long  dissertations,  will  be  shown ; 
and  many  of  them  which  have  frightened  philologists  by  their 
portentous  shapes,  will  be  recognized  as  old  acquaintances, 
somewhat  mutilated  and  disguised. 

"  The  author,  in  the  fifth  Disquisition,  after  attempting  a 
solution  of  some  apparent  objections  to  or  difficulties  in  his 
hypothesis,  proceeds  to  show  how  much  it  seems  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  sentiments  and  statements  of  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  Editors  of  the  New  Testament.  It  will  be 
found  that  of  these  some  have  proceeded  on  the  assumption 
that  even  the  Latin  Vulgate  (itself  a  version  from  the  Greek) 
is  of  greater  authority  than  the  modern  Greek  text ;  while 
others  accuse  the  most  venerable  Greek  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament,  and,  indeed,  in  proportion  to  their  antiquity,  of 
Latinizing.  In  the  sixth  and  last  Disquisition,  the  author 
applies  his  hypothesis  to  an  elucidation  of  the  German  theory 
of  different  families  or  I'ecensions  of  the  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament ;  and  here,  as  all  along,  he  illustrates  (if  he  mis- 
takes not)  numerous  passages,  and  many  various  readings, 
which  have  hitherto  resisted  the  efforts  of  all  critics  to  ex- 
plain them."  * 

*  Preface,  pp.  viii. -xi. 


PAL.EOROMAICA.  127 

On  these  grounds  chiefly  he  raises  his  visionary  structure, 
whicli,  if  true,  would  go  far  to  endanger  the  whole  fabric  of 
Christianity.  His  learning  is  evidently  considerable,  but  his 
love  of  paradox  would  seem  to  be  still  greater.  The  work 
was  regarded,  on  its  first  appearance,  as  dangerous,  and  im- 
mediately occasioned  a  considerable  controversy. 

In  the  British  Critic  for  January,  February,  and  April, 
[1823,]  a  long  and  able  article  combated  the  main  positions 
of  the  Palaeoromaica.  In  the  course  of  the  same  year,  it  was 
attacked  by  Bishop  Burgess,  in  the  Postscript  to  his  Vindi- 
cation of  1  John  V.  7 ;  by  the  Rev.  J.  T.  Conybeare,  in  his 
"Examination  of  certain  Arguments  in  Palasoromaica " ;  by 
Dr.  Falconer,  in  the  "  Second  Part  of  the  Case  of  Eusebi- 
us";  and  by  the  Rev.  W.  G.  Broughton,  in  his  "Examina- 
tion of  the  Hypothesis  advanced  in  a  recent  Publication, 
entitled  Paljeoromaica." 

The  last  is  the  ablest  and  fullest  exposure  of  the  fallacy 
and  absurdity  of  the  whole  scheme.  The  author,  however, 
far  from  being  discouraged  by  the  number  and  weight  of  his 
opponents,  again  took  the  field  against  them  all,  in  a  "  Sup- 
plement to  Palasoromaica,  with  Remarks  on  the  Strictures 
made  on  that  Work  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  the  Rev. 
J.  T.  Conybeare,  the  British  Critic ;  also  by  the  Rev.  W.  G. 
Broughton,  and  Dr.  Falconer."  1824. 

To  the  second  "  Postscript "  in  this  publication,  Mr. 
Broughton  replied  in  1825.  And  the  whole  subject  was 
again  brought  into  review  by  Dr.  Maltby,  in  a  visitation  ser- 
mon, entitled,  "  The  Original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
asserted  and  vindicated."  Such  is  the  present  state  of  the 
Palasoromaican  Controversy.  It  is  very  curious  as  a  display 
of  ingenuity,  and  as  affording  another  proof  that  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  is  capable  of  bearing  any  ordeal  to  which 
it  is  possible  for  the  learning  or  genius  of  man  to  put  it. 


128  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

Having  noticed  the  work  itself,  and  the  discussion  which 
it  occasioned,  I  must  state  how  it  came  to  be  connected  with 
the  dispute  about  the  Heavenly  Witnesses.  The  author  con- 
siders the  di^puted  verse  a  specimen  of  ti-anslation  from  Latin, 
and  therefore  one  of  the  supports  of  his  argument  for  the 
Latin  origin  of  the  New  Testament.  The  following  passage 
contains  the  substance  of  his  theory  on  this  part  of  his  subject. 

"  A  still  more  apj^roi^riate  example  of  the  origin  of  recen- 
sions, arising  from  a  diversity  of  versions  from  the  Latin,  may 
be  given  from  an  interpolation  in  the  Greek  New  Testament 
itself.  In  his  two  first  editions  of  the  New  Testament,  Eras- 
mus omitted  the  famous  verse,  1  John  v.  7,  concerning  the 
three  heavenly  witnesses,  but  inserted  it  in  his  later  editions 
on  the  authority  of  a  Codex  Britannicus.  This  Cod.  Brit. 
is  supposed  to  be  the  Cod.  Monifortianus  or  Duhlinensis,  one 
proof  of  which  is,  that  the  text  of  the  third  edition  of  Eras- 
mus, printed  in  1522,  agrees  verbatim  in  this  interpolated 
passage  with  the  Dublin  MS.,  while  it  differs  from  all  other 
editions,  except  such  as  were  copied  from  itself.  Nor  does  it 
differ  only  from  the  usual  text,  but  (as  Michaelis  observes) 
'is  written  in  such  Greek  as  manifestly  betrays  a  transla- 
tion from  the  Latin.'  I  shall  transcribe  the  interpolated 
words  as  they  exist  in  the  three  celebrated  editions  of  the 
New  Testament. 

"  Cod.  Montfort.  and  Edit.  Bi-asmi  tertia,  anni  1522. 

"  fv  TO)  ovpavo),  TTaTr]p,  Xoyos,  Kai  TivtVjxa  dyiov,  Kai  oiiTOi  oi  rptis 
ev  eiai.      Kat  rpeis  eiaiP  ot  fj-apTvpuvvres  ev  rrj  yrj. 

"  '  Here  (says  Michaelis,  ii.  286)  the  article  is  omitted  be- 
fore the  words  expressive  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
because  there  is  no  article  in  the  Latin,  and  it  occurred  not 
to  the  translator  that  the  usual  Greek  was  6  Trarrjp,  6  \oyos, 
TO  TTvevfia.  He  has  also  (v  rrj  yj),  which  is  false  Greek  for  ewt 
Tr]s  ytjs,  because  he  found  in  the  Latin  in  terra.' 


PALiEOROMAICA.  129 

"  Editto  Stephani  (ertia,  anni  1550. 

'*  fv  TO)  ovpavo),  6  7raTrjp,  6  Xoyoy,  Kai  to  ayiop  irvevfia,  Kai  ovroi 
oi  Tpfis  if  ei(Ti.      Kai  rpeis  ficriv  ol  papTvpovvres  fv  ttj  yrj. 

"  Plere  Stephens,  or  rather,  as  Dr.  Marsh  observes,  Ei-as- 
mus  himself,  in  his  two  la.'^t  editions,  has  modelled  the  verse 
'  into  better  Greek  by  the  insertion  of  the  article.'  Still, 
however,  we  have  the  Latinism  ev  tj]  yrj.  It  has  been  proved 
irrefragably  by  several  critics,  that  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tors translated  also  the  above  verse  from  the  Latin,  and  in- 
terpolated it  into  their  Greek  text.  '  And  it  is  no  more  than 
justice  (says  Person)  to  allow  that  they  at  least  did  their 
work  like  workmen.  They  made  good  Greek  of  their  Latin, 
—  a  task  to  which  the  translator  of  the  Lateran  Decrees, 
and  the  writer  of  the  Dublin  IMS.  were  unequal.'  This  Com- 
plutensian text  is  as  follows  :  — 

"  Editio  Complutensi's,  anni  1514. 

"  ev  Tco  ovpava,  6  naTrjp,  kgi  6  Xoyoj,  Kai  to  nvevpa  uyiov,  Kai  oi 
Tpfii  fis  TO  iv  eiai.      Kai  Tpus  ei(riv  o'l  papTvpovvres  tni  Tr]s  yrjs. 

"  In  the  above  text,  translated  from  Latin  into  Greek,  we 
have  a  specimen  of  three  different  recensions  arising  from 
three  different  versions  from  the  Latin  ;  or,  at  least,  from  two 
immediate  versions  from  that  language,  and  an  improvement 
upon  one  of  them  by  modelling  it  into  better  Greek.  This 
improvement  is  produced,  in  the  first  place,  by  an  insertion 
of  the  articles.  I  formerly  [p.  297]  endeavored  to  account 
for  the  non-existence  of  the  dual  number  in  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures, from  the  circumstance  of  its  non-existence  in  the  Latin, 
whence  our  Vulgate  Greek  copies  may  have  been  translated  ; 
and,  in  like  manner,  as  the  articles  are  wanting  in  the  Latin 
language,  there  is  usually  a  deficiency  in  this  respect  in  every 
literal  Greek  version  from  the  Latin.  Thus,  as  we  have  seen 
above,  we  have  in  the  Dublin  MS.,  and  in  the  edition  of  Imhs- 
raus,  which  was  derived  from  it,  jraTJ/p  and  \oyos  and  irvtvp.a 
6*  I 


130  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

without  any  article.  It  is  stated  by  Erasmus,  in  one  of  his 
Apologies,  in  speaking  of  his  first  edition,  '  In  calce  Apoca- 
lypsis  in  exemplari,  quod  turn  nobis  erat  unicum,  nam  is  liber 
apud  Graicos  rarus  est  inventu,  deerat  unus  atque  alter  versus. 
Eos  nos  addidiraus  secuti  Latinos  Codices.'  Wetstein,  who 
quotes  this  passage,  remarks,  '  Accuratius  tamen  omnia  ri- 
manti  satis  constat,  non,  ut  Erasmus  scribit,  perpauca  fuisse, 
quoe  ipse  ex  Latinis  utcunque  et  festinanter  Greece  reddidit, 
sed  a  vers.  16  ad  finem  libri  sex  integros  versus.  In  istis 
enim  omnibus  Erasmi  editio  abit  a  Codicibus  MSS.,  et  ita 
quidem,  ut  Grrpca  ipsius  non  obscurum  sit  ex  Latinis  fuisse 
conversa.  Hinc  enim  profecta  est  perpetua  ilia  omissio  ar- 
ticulorum  vers.  16,  pi^a  pro  17  pi^a  ;  Xa/iTrpo?  jjro  6  'Kap.Trpos ; 
vers.  18,  npoCpriTfias  /3i/3Xtou  pro  rrjs  rrpoiprjTeias  tov  /StjSAtov,  ef 
/3t/3Xi«  pro  €u  TM  ^tjSXni)  bis ;  vers.  19,  ^cjSXov  pro  tov  ^t^Xtou; 
C(^T]S  pro  TTjs  ^airjs ;  TroXfcos  ayias  pro  Trjs  noXews  ttjs  ayias.' ' 

This,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  ingenious ;  but  though  it 
should  be  proved  that  the  disputed  passage  was  first  trans- 
lated into  Greek  by  the  Complutensian  editors,  or  the  writer 
of  the  Dublin  manuscript,  the  argument  of  the  Palaeoromai- 
ca  iu  favor  of  the  Latin  origin  of  the  New  Testament  would 
by  no  means  follow,  as  I  suppose  the  disputed  verse  is  the 
only  passage  in  this  particular  situation.  The  author  is 
aware  of  this,  and  therefore  supports  his  hypothesis  by  other 
arguments,  which  it  is  no  part  of  my  business  to  answer. 
Those  who  wish  to  enter  fully  into  this  curious,  and  not  un- 
interesting controversy,  must  consult  the  works  on  both  sides 
which  have  been  enumerated. 

Having  noticed  several  works  in  which  the  subject  of  this 
memoir  is  incidently  discussed,  we  come  now  to  the  latest 
stage  of  this  important  controversy,  in  which  Dr.  Burgess, 

»  Pp.  411-415. 


BURGESS.  131 

formerly  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  but  now  of  Salisbury,  makes 
the  principal  figure.  Considering  the  learning  and  talents 
which  had  previously  exjiended  their  resources  and  power 
on  the  merits  of  this  question,  a  new  aspirant  to  the  honor 
of  finally  determining  it  might  be  expected  to  possess  more 
than  ordinary  claims  to  the  attention  of  the  literary  republic. 
Dr.  Burgess  was  well  known  as  a  highly  respectable  clergy- 
man ;  and  as  a  prelate  he  was  venerable  for  his  years  and  his 
moderation.  But  his  publications  had  been  numerous  rather 
tlian  profound ;  neither  distinguished  by  superior  erudition, 
nor  any  particular  traits  of  genius  and  originality. 

In  1820,  the  Bishop  published  a  volume  of  tracts  on  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  in  which  he  expressed  himself  in  favor 
of  the  disputed  passage,  and  enters  into  a  short  argument  in 
support  of  his  opinion.  But  nothing  in  this  tract  requires 
particular  notice. 

In  1821,  he  commenced  his  labors  in  support  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  by  publishing  "  A  Vindica- 
tion of  1  John  V.  7,  from  the  Objections  of  M.  Griesbach : 
in  which  a  New  View  is  given  of  the  external  Evidence, 
with  Greek  Authorities  for  the  Authenticity  of  the  Verse, 
not  hitherto  adduced  in  its  Defence."  In  this  pamphlet  he 
endeavors  to  show  that  Griesbach's  judgment  on  the  text  is 
precipitate,  partial,  contrary  to  his  own  rules  of  criticism, 
and  untenable  ;  —  that  Bengelius's  conviction  of  its  authority 
rested  not  on  one  argument,  but  on  many; — and  alleges  that 
various  reasons,  which  he  assigns,  may  account  for  the  loss 
of  the  verse  in  the  ancient  manuscripts.  He  argues  that  its 
absence  from  manuscripts  now  extant  is  no  proof  of  its  spu- 
riousness,  if  it  can  be  proved  it  was  ever  read  in  the  most 
ancient  Greek  manuscripts.  He  maintains,  on  the  authority 
of  Cyprian,  and  the  ancient  Latin  version,  that  this  was  the 
case.     He  argues  both  from  the  internal  and  external  evi- 


132  CONTROVERSY   RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.   7. 

dence  in  support  of  the  common  reading,  and  has  evidently 
arrived  at  a  very  thorough  conviction  of  its  genuineness  him- 
self.    Of  Gricsbach  he  says  :  — 

"  The  substance  of  M.  Griesbach's  Diatribe  consists  of  these 
positions:  —  that  the  controverted  verse  is  not  found  in  any 
Greek  manuscript  extant  but  one,  and  that  a  very  recent 
manuscript  of  the  fifteenth  or  sixteentli  century ;  that  it  is 
not  quoted  by  any  of  the  Greek  fathers ;  and  that  it  rests 
chiefly,  if  not  solely,  on  the  authority  of  Vigilius  Tapseusis. 
I  have  shown  that  he  is  mistaken  in  the  last  of  these  posi- 
tions. He  is  also  mistaken  in  the  age  of  the  Dublin  manu- 
script, which  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  has  shown  to  be  a  manuscript 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  If  the  verse  has  not  yet  been 
found  in  any  other  Greek  manuscript,  it  may  hereafter. 
The  Hymn  to  Ceres  had  been  lost  for  sixteen  centuries,  when 
it  was  discovered  in  a  manuscript  at  Moscow,  and  that  man- 
uscript written  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
If  the  verse  is  not  quoted  by  any  of  the  Greek  fathers,  it  has 
been  by  two  Latin  fathers,  who  are  more  ancient  than  any 
Greek  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament  that  is  now  ex- 
tant."* 

On  the  internal  evidence  of  the  verse  he  says :  — 
"  Ernesti  and  Horsley  were  decided  in  their  opinion  of  its 
authenticity  by  the  internal  evidence.  And  though  Gries- 
bach  in  his  Diatribe  on  the  verse  dismisses  this  evidence,  as 
I  said  before,  hastily  and  contemptuously,  yet  he  not  only  in 
his  general  rule  for  judging  of  the  true  reading  of  a  passage 
gives  i\\e  Jirst  place  to  the  interna  honitas  of  the  text,  but  on 
another  occasion,  in  estimating  the  value  of  Codex  Paulin. 
17.  in  his  Symboloe  Criticae,  he  takes  the  internal  evidence 
for  his  chief  guide.  Nay,  in  the  Preface  to  his  latest  work, 
his  Commentarius  Criticus  in  Nov.  Test.  Part  II.,  he  repre 

*  Vindication,  2d  edit.,  p.  99. 


BURGESS.  133 

sents  the  use  of  MSS.  and  his  distinction  of  recensions  as 
of  very  secondary  consideration,  in  comparison  with  the  inter- 
na verce  falsceve  lectionis  indicia.  I  shall  accordingly,  in  the 
following  pages,  reverse  the  method  of  inquiry  into  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  verse  which  he  observed  in  his  Diatribe. 
I  shall  first  consider  the  internal  evidence,  and  then  the  ex- 
ternal ;  and  shall  take  a  new  view  of  its  external  history  by 
dividing  it  into  three  periods:  (1.)  From  the  death  of  St.  John 
to  the  end  of  the  third  century ;  (2.)  From  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century  to  the  end  of  the  ninth;  (3.)  From  the 
beginning  of  the  tenth  to  the  date  of  the  Complutensian,  or 
first  printed  edition,  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  and  shall  apply 
to  the  two  first  periods  two  Greek  authorities  not  hitherto 
adduced  in  defence  of  the  verse."* 

In  speaking  on  the  external  evidence  of  the  verse,  to 
which  the  Bishop  alleges  Griesbach  has  done  much  injus- 
tice, he  refers  to  two  or  three  additional  Greek  evidences  of 
great  antiquity  which  he  had  to  adduce.  From  this  the 
reader  might  be  led  to  expect  the  testimony  of  some  newly 
discovered  manuscripts,  or  the  undoubted  reading  of  some 
ancient  Greek  fathers.  But  no  such  thing:  the  Bishop  has 
nothing  of  the  kind  to  produce.  His  evidence  is  nothing  but 
hypothetical  argument  and  supposition,  from  beginning  to 
end.  In  the  first  period  of  the  Bishop's  distribution  no 
manuscripts  whatever  now  exist.  This  absence  of  all  evi- 
dence his  Lordship  converts  into  positive  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  verse. 

"In  the  view  which  we  have  taken  of  this  first  period, 
everything  is  favorable  to  the  authenticity  of  the  controverted 
verse.  The  internal  evidence  requires  the  verse  ;  there  is  no 
external  evidence  against  it ;  for  there  is  no  manuscript  ex- 
tant so  ancient  as  this  period ;  and  we  have  good  evidence 

*  Vindication,  pp.  108,  109. 


134  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

for  it  in  the  testimony  of  the  Latin  version  of  this  period, 
preserved  by  the  African  Church ;  beside  the  probability 
arising  from  the  rejection  of  St.  John's  Epistles  by  the  Alogi. 
These  evidences  cannot  be  invalidated  by  the  absence  of  the 
verse  from  manuscripts  of  a  later  period ;  nor  is  it  incumbent 
on  the  defenders  of  the  verse  to  account  for  its  loss,  or  for 
the  silence  of  the  Greek  fathers ;  though  the  former  may  be 
accounted  for  from  the  homoeoteleuton,  if  not  from  the  muti- 
lation of  this  very  Epistle  by  those  who  wished  to  sever  the 
humanity  of  Christ  from  his  divinity ;  and  the  latter  from 
the  reasons  given  by  Bengelius,  and  lately  by  IMr.  Nolan,  in 
his  view  of  the  subjects  of  religious  controversy  during  the 
six  first  centuries."  * 

His  reasoning  respecting  the  second  period  is  of  the  same 
novel  and  extraordinary  character. 

"  In  the  second  period  of  the  external  history  of  the  verse, 
which  comprehends  six  hundred  years  (A.  D.  301  -  900), 
while  the  clear  light  of  the  internal  evidence  continues  in  all 
its  force,  the  external  evidence  assumes  a  somewhat  different 
character.  In  the  former  period  there  was  no  external  evi- 
dence against  the  verse  ;  in  this  there  is  some  ;  but  at  the  same 
time  there  is  some  for  it:  negative  evidence  against  the  verse, 
and  positive  for  it.  All  the  Greek  manuscripts  extant  of  this 
period  omit  the  verse.  But  they  are  so  few  (not  more  than 
four)  as  to  bear  no  proportion  to  the  hundreds,  perhaps  thou- 
sands, that  are  lost,  many  of  which  might  have  contained  it, 
as  some,  we  know,  did. 

"  There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  the  seventh  verse  was 
extant  in  the  Greek  in  the  copies  of  Walafrid  Strabo ;  and 
none  at  all  of  its  existence  in  the  time  of  the  writer  of  the 
Prologue  to  the  '  Canonical  Epistles.'  Walafrid  Strabo,  who 
lived  in  the  ninth  century,  wrote  a  comment  on  the  verse, 

*  Vindicatiou,  pp.  122,  123. 


BURGESS.  135 

and  the  Prologue  to  the  Epistles.  He  could  not,  therefore, 
be  ignorant  either  of  the  defects  which  the  author  of  the 
Prologue  imputes  to  the  Latin  copies  of  his  day,  or  of  the 
integrity  of  the  Greek,  as  asserted  by  him ;  and  he  directs 
his  readers  to  correct  the  errors  of  the  Latin  by  the  Greek. 
The  testimony  of  the  Prologue  is  very  material  to  both 
points."  * 

The  Bishop's  assertions  respecting  the  Greek  copies  of 
Strabo,  and  the  Prologue  to  the  Epistles  of  John,  are  totally 
void  of  foundation,  as  both  Porson  and  Marsh  had  success- 
fully shown ;  yet  on  this  untenable  position  the  Bishop  goes 
on  to  argue,  that  he  "  had  arrived  at  a  certainty  that  the 
controverted  verse  was  extant  in  Greek  manuscripts  of  the 
sixth  or  seventh  century."  He  sums  up  in  the  following 
manner :  — 

"  The  authority  of  the  African  Church,  as  witnesses  to  the 
authenticity  of  1  John  v.  7,  is  not  diminished  by  the  allego- 
ries either  of  Augustin  or  his  follow^er,  Facundus.  Nor  is 
the  validity  of  that  testimony  lessened  by  its  being  delivered 
in  Latin  instead  of  Greek.  That  the  Latin  Church  was  in 
possession  of  the  Greek  text,  we  know  from  Tertullian's  ap- 
peal to  the  litercB  authenticce  of  the  Apostles,  (whether  auto- 
graphs or  copies  is  of  no  consequence,)  and  the  authenticum 
Grcecum  of  St.  Paul,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries ;  from 
the  writer  of  the  Prologue  to  the  Epistles  in  the  sixth  or 
seventh  century,  and  from  Walafrid  Strabo's  references,  in 
the  ninth  century,  to  the  Greek  text  as  the  standard  for  cor- 
recting the  imperfections  of  the  Latin."  f 

It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  so  respectable  a  person  as 
the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  should  have  undertaken  a  cause 
in  which  he  so  entirely  fails ;  especially  as  he  attaches  so 
much  importance  to  the  question,  and  speaks  so  confidently 

•  Pp.  123,  124.  t  Pp.  139,  140. 


136  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

of  his  success  in  establishing  the  claims  of  the  passage. 
Reasoning  more  unsatisfactory  has  rarely  ever  been  em- 
ployed on  a  critical  and  theological  subject ;  and  both  the 
evidence  and  the  doctrines  of  revelation  are  affected  by  such 
a  method  of  defending  them. 

The  Bishop  met  with  an  oppor;ent  worthy  of  him  and  of 
the  cause  which  he  espoused,  not  in  a  Unitarian  or  a  Dissenter, 
whom  he  appears  to  have  considered  the  chief  opponents  of 
the  verse,  but  in  a  learned  member  of  his  own  church,  and 
in  a  journal  distinguished  for  its  high-church  principles  and 
spirit.  In  the  Quarterly  Review  for  March,  1822,  there  ap- 
peared a  very  able  article  on  the  Bishop's  pamphlet.  In  this 
critique  his  Lordship  is  treated  with  great  courtesy  and  re- 
spect ;  but  his  evidence  is  entirely  swept  away,  and  his  argu- 
ment utterly  demolished. 

From  the  manner  in  which  this  article  is  written,  arising 
necessarily  from  the  nature  of  the  work  in  which  it  appears, 
it  is  very  difficult  to  separate  the  parts  of  the  argument,  so 
as  to  give  any  accurate  view  of  the  point  and  bearing  of  the 
whole.  It  glances  at  the  controversy  between  Porson  and 
Travi?,  notices  the  work  of  Nolan,  and  exposes  some  of  its 
mistakes,  objects  to  the  mode  of  argument  adopted,  and 
sanctioned  by  Dr.  Burgess,  adverts  to  his  attack  on  Gries- 
bacli,  and  to  JMiddleton's  objection,  which  we  have  already 
noticed.  It  then  closes  with  the  Bishop  on  the  subject  of 
the  external  evidence,  and  the  new  testimony  which  his  Lord- 
ship adduces.     After  replying  to  several  points,  — 

"  The  next  authority  appealed  to  is  that  of  Cyprian,  '  upon 
whom,'  as  Mr.  Porson  justly  observed,  '  the  whole  labor  of 
supporting  the  verse  is  devolved.'  In  the  treatise  De  Uni~ 
tate  Ecclesice,  by  that  father,  we  read  as  follows :  '  Dixit 
Dominus,  Ego  et  Pater  unum  suraus ;  et  iterum  de  Patre  et 


QUARTERLY   REVIEW.  137 

Filio  et  Spiritu  Sancto  scriptum  est,  Et  hi  tres  uniim  sunt.'  * 
This  passage  presents  by  far  the  strongest  evidence  that  has 
been  adduced  in  favor  of  the  verse.  The  expression,  '  scrip- 
tum est,'  certainly  implies  that  the  words  which  follow,  '  Et 
hi  tres  unum  sunt,'  were  extant  in  Scripture ;  and,  connected 
as  they  are  with  the  mention  of  the  three  persons  of  the 
Trinity,  the  natural  conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  reference  is 
made  to  the  seventh  verse  of  this  chapter.  Yet  all  who  are 
conversant  with  the  writings  of  the  fathers  must  be  well 
aware  that  their  scriptural  quotations  are,  for  the  most  part, 
made  from  memory,  and  without  that  formal  exactness  which 
we  now  require.  In  the  present  instance,  Cyprian  may  have 
had  the  above-cited  passage  of  his  master  Tertullian  in  his 
mind,  especially  as  he  uses  Filius  (as  Tertullian  did)  and  not 
Verbum ;  he  may  therefore  easily  have  confounded  the  '  qui 
tres  unum  sunt '  of  that  passage  with  the  '  hi  tres  unum 
sunt'  of  the  eighth  verse;  under  the  impression  that  Tertul- 
lian interpreted  the  eighth  verse  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  quite 
certain  that  Facundus  conceived  the  passage  in  Cyprian  to 
refer  to  the  eighth  verse.  This,  indeed,  the  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  admits ;  but  opposes  to  Facundus  the  authority  of 
Fulgentius,  who  also  quotes  the  same  passage,  and  represents 
him  as  citing  the  seventh  verse.  Mr.  Porson  contends,  that 
Fulgentius,  by  his  own  confession,  became  acquainted  with 
the  seventh  verse  solely  by  the  means  of  Cyprian ;  but  we 
are  far  from  being  convinced  by  the  learned  professor's  argu- 
ments on  this  subject.  In  our  opinion,  which  yet  may  be 
plausibly  disputed,  the  legitimate  inference  from  the  words 
of  Fulgentius  is,  that  he  had  the  verse  in  his  copy  of  the 
Latin   version.     It  does   not,   however,  follow  that  he  was 

*  [That  is:  —  "The  Lord  has  said,  I  and  the  Father  ai-e  one;  and  again 
it  is  \VTitten  concerning  the  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  And  these 
three  are  one."  —  Ed.] 


138  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.   7- 

correct  in  supposing  that  Cyprian  quoted  the  seventh  verse. 
We  have  stated  the  difficulty  attending  the  passage  in  Cyp- 
rian ;  and  the  question  for  the  reader's  consideration  is, 
whether  the  evidence  which  it  supplies  on  the  side  of  the 
verse  be  so  weighty  as  to  overbalance  the  great  mass  of  evi- 
dence in  the  opposite  scale.''  * 

This,  the  Bishop  will  admit,  is  candid.  It  concedes  there 
is  difficulty  respecting  Cyprian ;  but  after  all,  it  leaves  the 
matter  in  great  doubt  whether  Cyprian  really  refers  to  the 
passage.  It  is  perfectly  absurd  to  found  the  authority  of  an 
important  sentence  of  the  word  of  God  on  such  a  basis.  In 
reference  to  the  novel  part  of  the  Bishop's  argument,  the  fol- 
lowing passage  in  the  article  is  quite  conclusive :  — 

"  We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  Right  Reverend  author's 
new  Greek  authorities,  of  which,  however,  the  first  had  been 
noticed  by  Mr.  Nolan  (p.  568),  viz.  'the  rejection  of  the 
writings  of  St.  John  by  Certain  heretics  of  this  (i.  e.  the  first) 
period,  whom  Epiphanius  calls  Alogi,  on  account  of  their 
denial  of  the  Apostle's  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  the  Logos, 
or  the  Word.'  Lardner  has  denied  the  existence  of  any 
heretics  so  called.  But  Lardner,  it  may  be  thought,  was 
biassed  by  his  peculiar  opinions.  Let  us,  therefore,  grant 
that  such  heretics  did  exist,  and  that  they  rejected  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  John.  Does  it  follow,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, that  1  John  v.  7  is  genuine  ?  Is  not  the  very  first 
verse  of  the  Epistle  sufficient  to  account  for  the  rejection  ? 
Mr.  Nolan,  at  least  (p.  569),  thinks  that  it  is  even  more 
strongly  opposed  to  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the  Alogi  than 
the  disputed  verse. 

"  With  respect  to  the  other  Greek  authority  produced  by 
the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  from  the  Pseudo-Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  which  he  connects  with  a  passage  in  Tertullian,  we 
*  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XXVI.  pp.  332,  333. 


QUARTERLY   REVIEW,  139 

can  scarcely  persuade  ourselves  that  the  learned  prelate 
places  any  confidence  in  such  a  witness  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  text  in  question.  In  return,  however,  for  this  'au- 
thority,' we  will  present  the  Bishop  and  our  readers  with  a 
short  extract  from  a  work  printed  iu  Potter's  edition  of  Cle- 
mens. The  work  is  entitled  Adumbrationes ;  and  is  sup- 
posed by  learned  men  to  be  a  translation,  by  Cassiodorus,  of 
some  Commentaries  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  by  Clemens 
Alexandrinus.  '  Iste  est,  inquit,  qui  venit  per  aquam  et  san- 
guinem ;  et  iterum,  quia  tres  sunt  qui  testificantur ;  spiritus, 
quod  est  vita ;  et  aqua,  quod  est  regeneratio  ac  fides ;  et  san- 
guis, quod  est  cognitio :  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  In  Salvatore 
quippe  istce  sunt  virtutes  salutiferag,  et  vita  ipsa  in  ipso  filio 
ejus  existit.'  We  do  not  ascribe  any  great  weight  to  this  ex- 
tract, because  there  is  much  uncertainty  respecting  both  the 
author  and  the  translator  of  the  work  from  which  it  was 
taken.  Our  principal  reasons  for  adducing  it  are,  that  the 
testimony  of  Cassiodorus  (to  whom  the  translation  is  attrib- 
uted) has  been  urged  in  defence  of  the  7th  verse ;  and  that 
the  extract  affords  a  singular  confirmation  of  Mr.  Person's 
conjecture  with  regard  to  the  reading  which  Cassiodorus 
found  in  his  copy  of  St.  John's  Epistle.  —  Letters  to  Travis, 
p.  3ol. 

"  On  the  whole,  it  appears  that  the  external  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  verse,  during  the  Bishop's  first  period,  is  reduced 
to  the  authority  of  Cyprian.  Still,  however,  the  learned  pre- 
late thinks  that  there  is  cause  to  triumph,  inasmuch  as  the 
same  period  exhibits  no  evidence  against  the  verse.  What 
evidence  of  this  kind  can  be  required  ?  It  is  admitted  on  all 
hands  that  there  is  no  Greek  MS.  extant,  so  old  as  this  peri- 
od: but  we  have  two  MSS.  of  the  fourth  century,  which  omit 
tlie  verse ;  and  may  we  not  justly  infer  that  the  MSS.  from 
which  they  were  copied  omitted  it  also?    Again,  the  verse  has 


140  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

not  been  quoted  by  any  of  the  Greek  fathers  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries.  Does  not  this  fact  alone  furnish  strong 
presumptive  evidence  that  during  those  periods  it  was  not  in 
existence  ?  Can  it  be  expected  that  pas-ages  should  be  pro- 
duced from  their  writings  expressly  aiErming  the  spurious- 
ness  of  the  verse,  that  is,  the  spuriousness  of  a  verse,  of  the 
existence  of  which  they  were  utterly  ignorant  ?  "  * 

No  part  of  the  discussion  on  this  important  subject  has 
been  more  strenuously  contended  for  on  the  one  hand,  or 
more  resolutely  resisted  on  the  other,  than  the  alleged  au- 
thority of  Strabo,  in  the  Glossa  Ordinaria,  which  Archdea- 
con Travis  and  Dr.  Burgess  maintain  was  written  in  the 
ninth  century,  and  which,  it  is  alleged,  furnishes  unquestion- 
able evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  the  text.  After  quoting 
a  passage  from  Travis  to  this  effect,  the  present  writer  thus 
proceeds : — 

"It  is  well  known  to  the  learned  in  these  matters,  and  may 
easily  be  ascertained  by  those  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
inquire,  that  the  title  of  Walafrid  Strabo  to  be  considered  as 
the  author  of  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  is,  to  use  Mr.  Person's 
phrase,  'exceedingly  questionable';  and  that  still  more  'ques- 
tionable '  is  his  right  to  the  Commentary  on  the  Prologue  to 
the  '  Canonical  Epistles.'  Our  present  intention,  however,  is 
to  prove  that  Walafrid  Strabo  certainly  was  not  the  au- 
thor of  the  sentence  quoted  in  the  preceding  statement,  — 
a  sentence  from  which  so  many  consequences  are  deduced. 
That  sentence  forms  the  conclusion  of  a  short  tract  which  is 
prefixed  to  the  Glossa  Ordinaria,  and  entitled  '  Translatores 
Biblias.'  Had  Mr.  Travis  taken  the  precaution  of  reading 
the  entire  tract,  he  would  have  found  that  the  writer,  in  his 
account  of  the  Septuagint  translation,  quotes,  as  his  authority, 
a  person  whom  he  calls  '  Magister  in  Historiis.'     This  appel- 

•  Pp.  333,  334. 


QUARTERLY  REVIEW.  141 

lation  had  been  given  to  Petrus  Cojiestor,  who  flourished 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  wrote  a  history 
of  the  Bible  under  the  title  of  Historia  Scholaslica.  The 
tract  in  question,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  written  by 
Walafrid  Strabo,  who  lived  in  the  ninth  century.  What  now 
becomes  of  Mr.  Travis's  argument  founded  on  the  ancient 
Greek  MSS.  which  had  been  examined  with  the  most  critical 
exactness  by  Walafrid  Strabo  ? 

"As  much  importance  has,  by  several  writers,  been  at- 
tached to  the  supposed  testimony  of  Walafrid  Strabo,  we 
have  taken  some  pains  to  ascertain  the  real  author  of  the 
tract  from  which  Mr.  Travis  drew  his  quotation.  We  have 
now  before  us  an  edition  of  the  Vulgate  Bible,  with  the  Glos- 
sae  and  the  Exposition  of  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  printed  at  Ven- 
ice by  Pagninus,  in  the  year  1495.  Prefixed  to  the  work  is 
a  letter  addressed  to  Cardinal  Francis  Picolhomini,  by  Ber- 
nardinus  Gadolus,  Brixianus.  In  this  letter  Gadolus  de- 
scribes the  great  care  and  diligence  which  he  had  employed, 
at  the  request  of  Pagninus,  in  preparing  the  edition ;  and 
concludes  with  the  following  sentence :  '  Conscripsi  praete- 
rea,  sive  ex  multis  auctoribus  et  pra^cipue  ex  Hieronymo 
excerpsi,  tractatulum  de  Libris  Bibliae  Canonicis  et  non  Ca- 
nonicis ;  qui  si  tuae  reverendissima;  dominationis  judicio,  cui 
omnia  subjicio,  comprobatus  fuerit,  eum  ad  utilitatem  legen- 
tium  imprimi  permittam ;  sin  nimis  (1.  minus)  cellula  conti- 
nebitur.'*  Then  follows  the  Tract  alluded  to  in  the  letter, 
entitled  De  Libris  Canonicis  et  non  Canonicis ;  to  which  is 
subjoined  the  Tract  entitled  Translatores  Biblice,  which  fur- 

*  [That  is:  —  "I  have  also  written,  or  rather  I  have  extracted  from 
many  authors,  and  especially  from  Jerome,  a  small  treatise  concerning  the 
canonical  and  uncanonical  books  of  the  Bible;  and  if  this  shall  be  ap- 
proved by  the  judgment  of  your  Most  Reverend  Lordship,  to  whom  I 
submit  everything,  1  will  allow  it  to  be  printed  for  the  benefit  of  readers; 
otherwise  it  shall  be  retained  in  my  cell."  —  Ed.] 


142  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7.  | 

nished  Mr.  Travis  with  his  quotation.  If  any  of  our  readers 
will  take  the  trouble  of  examining  these  two  tracts,  we  are 
convinced  that  not  one  of  them  will  hesitate  in  attributing 
them  to  the  same  pen.  In  both,  the  style  of  composition  is 
precisely  the  same,  and  the  same  authorities  are  alluded  to, 
viz.  Origen,  Jerome,  Magister  in  Historiis.  "We  must,  there- 
fore, conclude  that,  instead  of  affording  a  proof  of  the  criti- 
cal attention  of  Walafrid  Strabo  in  the  ninth  century,  Mr. 
Travis's  quotation  will  be  found  to  attest  the  editorial  dili- 
gence of  Bernardiuus  Gadolus  at  the  close  of  the  fifteenth."  * 

So  much  for  Strabo,  and  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  of  the  ninth 
century,  which  we  apprehend  have  now  received  their  quietus 
forever.  It  is  very  worthy  of  remark,  how  Divine  Provi- 
dence furnishes  the  means,  not  only  of  maintaining  the  au- 
thority of  the  true  Scriptures,  but  of  destroying  the  pretences 
of  what  is  false  and  apocryphal.  We  shall  quote  one  more 
short  passage  from  this  able  article,  before  proceeding  to  the 
next  stage  in  the  controversy. 

"  Some  persons  may  be  disposed  to  ask,  —  if,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  agreement  of  the  existing  Greek  manuscripts  in 
omitting  the  verse  affords  a  presumptive  proof  that  it  was 
omitted  in  the  earlier  manuscripts  from  which  they  are 
transcribed ;  and  so  on,  till  we  arrive  at  the  autograph  of  St. 
John,  —  does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  the  agreement  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  in  exhib- 
iting the  verse  equally  imply  that  it  existed  in  the  earlier 
Latin  manuscripts,  and,  consequently,  in  the  original  copy  of 
the  Latin  version  ?  To  this  question  we  will  reply  by  simply 
stating  the  circumstances  of  the  two  cases ;  first  with  regard 
to  the  Greek,  and  then  with  regard  to  the  Latin  manuscripts. 
On  the  Greek  manuscripts  we  adopt  the  language  of  Mat- 
thai  :  — '  Praeterea,  bona  fide  testor,  me  in  nullo  codice  hoc 

•  Pp.  836,  837. 


I  BURGESS.  1 43 

loco  litiiram  deprchendisse,  nee  hujus  loci  ulhitn  vestigium 
animadveitisse,  nee  in  marginibus  coclicuni,  nee  in  scholiis, 
nee  in  catenis ;  cum  tamen  ad  manus  mihi  fuerint  tres  codices 
cum  selioliis  ineditis  orthodoxorum  Theologorum,  et  unus, 
cum  catena  novendecira  nobilissimorum  Ecclesiag  Grajcaj  Pa- 
trum,  sseeulo  ix  scriptus.'  *  {Matthdi  ad  loc.)  On  the  Latin 
manuscripts  we  remark :  —  The  more  ancient  of  them  omit 
the  verse :  those  manuscripts  in  which  it  appears,  represent 
it  under  very  different  forms  ;  some  having  the  seventh  verse 
before  the  eighth,  and  some  after.  In  some  manuscripts  the 
seventh  verse  is  found  only  in  the  margin ;  and  in  a  very 
large  portion  the  concluding  clause  of  the  eighth  verse  (et  hi 
tres  unum  sunt)  is  omitted.  From  this  comparative  view  of 
the  state  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts,  as  to  the  con- 
troverted text,  we  leave  our  readers  to  draw  their  own  con- 
clusions. In  our  own  judgment  there  is  but  one  conclusion 
that  can  fairly  be  draAvn."  f 

As  an  auxiliary  to  the  cause  which  he  so  warmly  espouses, 
Bishop  Burgess  published,  in  1822,  a  small  volume  of  Latin 
tracts,  with  the  following  title :  "  Adnotationes  Millii  auctae 
et  correctae  ex  Prolegomenis  suis,  Wetstenii,  Bengelii,  et  Sa- 
baterii,  ad  I.  Joan  v.  7.  Una  cum  duabis  epistolis  Richardi 
Bentleii  et  Observationibus  Joannis  Seldeni,  C.  M.  Pfaffii,  J. 
F.  Buddei,  et  C.  F.  Schmidii  de  eodeni  loco,"  &c.  As  this 
is  merely  a  collection  of  tracts  written  in  support  of  the  dis- 
puted passage  long  ago,  containing  no  new  argument,  it  re- 
quires no  further  notice.    The  Bishop's  object  is  to  show,  that 

*  [That  is:  —  "Moreover,  I  testify  in  good  faith,  that  in  no  manuscript 
have  I  found  any  erasure  in  this  place,  nor  have  I  discovered  any  vestige 
of  the  passage  eitlier  in  the  margin  of  manuscripts,  or  in  scholia,  or  in  ca- 
tenae; though  I  have  had  at  hand  three  manuscripts  with  unpublished 
scholia  of  orthodox  theologians,  and  one,  written  in  the  ninth  century,  with 
a  catena  of  nineteen  of  the  noblest  fathers  of  the  Greek  Church."  — Ed.] 

t  Page  339. 


144  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

all  the  learned,  at  least,  have  not  abandoned  the  defence  of 
the  passage. 

His  Lordship  produced,  in  1823,  a  second  edition  of  his 
Vindication,  to  which  are  added,  "  A  Preface  in  reply  to  the 
Quarterly  Review,  and  a  Postscript  in  answer  to  a  recent 
Publication,  entitled,  Palasoromaica."  The  preface  is  the 
only  thing  in  this  publication,  beside  an  advertisement  of 
forty-two  pages,  with  which  we  have  now  to  do.  It  consists 
of  sixty-eight  pages.  In  this  the  Bishop  professes  to  meet 
the  Quarterly  Review ;  but  in  reality  never  closes  with  the 
main  argument  of  the  controversy.  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  petty  skirmishing,  —  a  large  portion  of  dust  raised ;  but 
little  done  to  satisfy  the  objector,  or  to  relieve  the  subject  of 
the  difficulties  under  which  it  labors.  His  Lordship  still 
maintains,  with  a  positiveness  that  is  very  extraordinary,  — 
"  That  while  we  have  much  positive  evidence  for  the  verse, 
there  is  no  positive  evidence  against  it."  * 

It  is  strange,  in  the  present  advanced  stage  of  biblical  lit- 
erature, that  it  should  be  asserted  there  is  no  positive  evi- 
dence against  a  sentence  purporting  to  belong  to  the  Bible, 
which  is  to  be  found  in  no  genuine  manuscript,  and  unsup- 
ported by  the  ancient  versions.  Can  his  Lordship  require  to 
be  informed,  that  the  only  positive  evidence  in  support  of  a 
passage  of  Scripture  is  its  existence  in  authentic  copies?  If 
this  be  departed  from,  on  the  ground  that  we  admit  one  verse, 
we  may  admit  a  hundred ;  and  thus  the  whole  evidence  and 
<;haracter  of  revelation  might  be  changed.  The  Bishop  still 
continues  to  reiterate  and  defend  his  two  new  authorities,  and 
actually  adduces  some  others.  But  they  are  all  of  the  same 
questionable  character ;  witnesses  which  do  not  admit  of 
cross-examination.  These  authorities  are  Diodorus,  accord- 
ing to  Theodoras  Anagnosta,  and  quoted  by  Suidas.     Mark 

*  Pago  15. 


BURGESS.  145 

the  roundabout  way  in  which  we  are  furnished  with  his  tes- 
timony ;  and  mark  still  further  what  it  is.  Why,  this  Diodo- 
rus,  who  it  seems  was  the  Preceptor  of  Chrysostom,  wrote 
on  the  1st  Epistle  of  John,  and  on  "Unity  in  the  Trinity"; 
from  which  the  Bishop  infers  1  John  v.  7  was  in  his  Greek 
copy  of  the  New  Testament !  There  is  really  no  arguing 
with  this  kind  of  evidence,  even  with  the  authority  of  Dor- 
hout  to  bolster  it  up. 

The  Bishop  has  another  new  authority,  Dionysius  of  Alex- 
andria. But  this  is  no  better  than  the  former.  The  disputed 
verse  is  not  quoted  by  Dionysius,  nor  any  argument  founded 
upon  it  in  his  writings.  If  "remote  conclusions  may  be  thus 
drawn  at  a  jump,"  there  is  scarcely  anything,  however 
destitute  of  foundation,  which  may  not  be  proved  or  dis- 
proved. 

In  the  conclusion  of  this  preface,  his  Lordship  recapitu- 
lates what  he  considers  the  substance  of  his  argument,  and 
the  leading  grounds  on  which  the  genuineness  of  the  passage 
may  be  defended.  The  reader  shall  have  the  benefit  of  this 
statement  in  his  own  words. 

"  For  myself,  I  adhere,  with  increased  conviction  of  its 
authenticity,  to  the  declaration  which  excited  the  Reviewer's 
'astonishment';  founded  on  the  following  reasons,  with  which 
I  recapitulate  the  substance  of  this  preface:  — 

"  1.  The  connection  of  the  verse  with  the  context,  and  with 
the  general  scope  of  the  Epistle ;  which  Bengelius  says,  om- 
nem  codiciim  penuriani  compensat  [makes  amends  for  all  the 
want  of  manuscripts]. 

'•  2.  The  evidence  of  the  Latin  Version,  Grcecis  omnibus 
codicibus  antiquior  [more  ancient  than  any  Greek  manu- 
script].    (Bengelius.) 

''  3.  The  testimony  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  which  Mill 
says  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  authenticate  the  seventh  verse; 
7  J 


146  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

licet  in  7udlis  omnino  ah  illo  tempore  in  hunc  usque  diem  ex- 
emplaribus  comparuerit  [even  if  it  has  been  found  in  no 
copies  from  that  day  to  this]. 

"  4.  The  testimony  of  Fulgentius,  who  i^laces  beyond  all 
doubt  Cyprian's  direct  citation  of  the  seventh  verse. 

"  5.  The  testimony  of  Eucherius  and  Cassiodorus,  who 
quote  hoth  verses. 

"  6.  The  testimony  of  the  African  Bishops,  instar  centeno- 
rum  codicum,  qui  optimce  notes  sunt  seculi  V.  [equivalent  to 
that  of  a  hundred  of  the  best  MSS.  of  the  fifth  century]. 
(Dorhout.) 

"  7.  The  quotations  or  allusions  of  the  Greek  fathers, 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Basil, 
Athanasius  the  younger,  Diodorus,  the  preceptor  of  Chry- 
sostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Maximus,  and  the  Greek  Scho- 
lia. 

"  8.  The  testimony  of  the  Prologue  of  the  Canonical  Epis- 
tles to  the  Greek  text  of  the  7th  verse,  extant  in  the  time  of 
the  writer. 

"  To  these  positive  reasons  for  the  authenticity  of  the  verse, 
we  may  add  the  following  negative  arguments. 

"  If  there  are  no  Greek  manuscripts  but  one, yb?-  the  verse, 
after  the  end  of  the  third  century,  there  are  no  Greek  man- 
uscripts against  the  verse  before  that  time. 

"  If  no  Greek  fathers  quote  the  Greek  text,  (which  cannot 
be  admitted,)  no  Latin  heretics  object  to  the  Latin  text.  The 
Greek  Church  objected  to  the  insertion  of  Filioque  in  the 
Latin  Creed,  but  never  to  the  text  of  the  seventh  verse  in 
the  Latin  version. 

"  If  no  Greek  father  quoted  1  John  v.  7,  no  Greek  father 
quoted  1  John  v.  20  during  the  first  three  centuries,  or  1  Tim. 
iii.  16  during  the  first  four."* 

*  Burgess,  pp.  66  -  68. 


OXLEE.  147 

In  further  prosecution  of  what  the  Bishop  appears  to  have 
made  a  considerable  part  of  the  business  of  his  latter  years, 
he  published,  in  1824,  "A  Selection  of  Tracts  and  Observa- 
tions on  1  John  v.  7."  This,  like  his  Latin  collection,  is  a 
useful  compilation.  It  consists  of  Bishop  Barlow's  letter 
to  Mr.  Hunt,  now  first  publislied  from  a  manuscript  in  the 
Queen's  College  Library,  Oxford ;  Bishop  Smalbroke's  Let- 
ter to  Dr.  Bentley,  with  Dr.  Bentley's  Answer;  Extracts 
from  Martin's  Examination  of  Emlyn's  Answer  relative  to 
that  Letter ;  the  Notes  of  Hammond  and  Whitby  on  the 
controverted  Verse ;  and  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  Account  of  the 
Montfort  Manuscript. 

Though  it  is  convenient  to  be  furnished  with  all  these 
tracts  in  one  volume,  they  throw  exceedingly  little  light 
upon  the  controversy.  The  testimony  of  one  undoubted 
manuscript  of  the  New  Testament,  or  a  correct  quotation  of 
the  passage  in  any  ancient  Greek  writer,  would  be  worth  a 
whole  host  of  opinions  of  modern  writers,  however  learned 
and  ingenious. 

Prefixed  to  these  tracts  are  an  introduction  and  preface  of 
seventy-two  pages,  by  the  Bishop  himself,  in  which  various 
points  in  the  controversy  are  adverted  to,  and  some  account 
given  of  the  several  tracts  which  are  introduced ;  but  in  which 
I  do  not  observe  anything  which  calls  for  particular  observa- 
tion. 

In  the  same  cause,  so  warmly  espoused  by  Dr.  Burgess, 
two  other  combatants,  on  opposite  sides,  appeared  about  the 
same  tiTne.  The  first  of  these,  Mr.  Oxlee,  of  whom  some 
notice  has  already  been  taken,  produced  "  Three  Letters,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Rev.  Fred.  Nolan,  on  his  erroneous  Criticisms 
and  Mis-statements  in  the  Christian  Remembrancer,  relative 
to  the  text  of  the  Heavenly  Witnesses ;  in  which  are  con- 


148  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

tained,  also,  Strictures  on  the  Vindication  of  the  spurious 
Passage  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's :  together  with  a  new 
Transhxtion  of  the  genuine  Text,  proposed  and  defended  from 
every  cavil,"  1825. 

The  other,  under  the  fictitious  signature  of  Ben  David, 
addresses  "Three  Letters  to  the  Editor  of  the  Quarterly 
Review,  in  which  is  demonstrated  the  Genuineness  of  the 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,"  1825. 

To  Mr.  Oxlee's  remarks  on  Mr.  Nolan  we  have  already 
adverted,  in  noticing  the  work  of  that  able  and  ingenious 
writer.  We  have  here  only  to  do  with  his  strictures  on  the 
Bishop  of  St.  David's.  We  are  sorry  to  say,  that  they  are 
written  in  a  tone  and  manner  more  resembling  the  spirit  of 
Porson,  than  the  temper  which  always  distinguishes  Dr. 
Burgess  in  his  controversial  works.  Mr.  Oxlee,  in  his  sec- 
ond letter,  endeavors  to  refute  the  arguments  adduced  by 
Mr.  Nolan  and  Dr.  Burgess  for  the  authenticity  of  Jerome's 
Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles :  and  in  the  third  letter  he 
introduces  what  he  considers  a  clear  and  connected  view  of 
the  text  and  its  context.  His  amended  translation  has  been 
already  given,  with  some  of  his  remarks  in  its  support.  It 
is  due  to  Mr.  Oxlee,  perhaps,  to  give  another  extract  from 
his  ingenious  pamphlet,  in  which  he  supports  his  views  of 
the  reading  of  the  text,  by  arguments  derived  from  the  con- 
nection. 

"  To  me  the  immediate  connection  of  the  three  witnesses 
with  the  sixth  verse  appears  to  have  originated  from  a  nat- 
ural association  of  ideas  in  the  mind  of  the  holy  Apostle. 
Having  asserted  that  the  Spirit  giveth  testimony,  because 
it  is  the  truth ;  he  quickly  calls  to  mind,  that,  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  bearing  witness  within  us,  is  the  truth ;  so  also  are  the 
Word,  or  the  Son,  and  the  Father,  the  truth ;  and  so  equally 
concurring  witnesses  with  the  Spirit  itself,  which  proceeds 


OXLEE.  149 

from  them  both.  The  conjunction  on,  therefore,  as  Grotius 
has  well  observed  on  this  text,  has  not  so  much  a  causative 
as  a  continuative  and  argumentative  signification ;  and  con- 
sequently, as  well  here  as  in  other  places  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion, it  is  rendered  by  the  simple  copulative :  and  in  the 
Armenian  Version  is  wholly  omitted.  The  connection  of 
the  sense  is  as  though  he  had  said,  —  Naj',  there  are  even 
three,  the  Father,  the  Woi'd,  or  the  Son,  as  well  as  the  Spirit, 
who  are  attesting  witnesses  of  the  water,  the  blood,  and  the 
spirit,  by  which  Christ  came  to  erect  his  holy  church ;  and 
these  three  are  for  one  thing,  that  is,  are  accounted  els  t6  ev 
irvfvfia,  for  one  and  the  same  Spirit ;  the  same  Evangelist 
having  elsewhere  declared,  that  God  is  a  Spirit.  If  then  we 
receive  the  testimony  of  men,  such  as  John  the  Baptist,  who 
testified  of  Christ,  that  he  had  descended  from  heaven,  as  the 
Son  of  God,  to  baptize  with  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost, — 
if,  I  say,  we  are  willing  to  admit  such  human  testimony  as 
this ;  the  testimony  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  unto  whose  name  every  Christian  man  is 
baptized,  and  who  dwell  inseparably  in  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful,  is  still  greater  and  more  to  be  depended  on,  in  that 
they  are  the  truth  itself,  and  cannot  possibly  deceive  us." 

The  pamphlet  certainly  abounds  in  very  able  and  ingenious 
reasonings,  and  displays  no  small  portion  of  literature ;  but  it 
is  offensively  warm.  Tliere  is  little  occasion  for  the  odium 
theologicum  in  a  discussion,  which,  it  is  now  well  understood, 
does  not  affect  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  whichever  side 
gains  the  ascendency.  Criticism  may  be  erroneous,  and  mis- 
takes may  be  unintentionally  made,  but  they  ouglit  to  be  op- 
posed with  calmness  and  firmness:  and  where  men  of  so  much 
eminence  rank  on  different  sides,  a  degree  of  modesty  is  more 
becoming  than  fierceness  and  dogmatic  confidence.  To  Mr. 
Oxlee  I  shall  have  occasion  to  advert  once  more. 


150  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.   7. 

The  author  of  Ben  David,  the  late  Dr.  Jones,  was  a  So- 
cinian,  and  a  man  of  considerable  genius  and  learning,  but 
fond  of  paradox.  A  defence  of  the  disputed  passage  from 
such  a  quarter  naturally  suggests  strong  suspicions  that  there 
was  something  under  it.  .^ 

"  Timeo  Danaos  dona  ferentes." 
His  object  is  to  prove  that  the  disputed  verse  forms  the  sub- 
ject of  the  whole  Epistle,  and  that  the  true  sense  places  its 
genuineness  beyond  all  reasonable  suspicion.  In  his  first  let- 
ter he  endeavors  to  show  that  the  object  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  was  to  check  the  Gnostic  heresy,  which  maintained 
that  the  Creator  is  an  evil,  imperfect  being,  and  that  Christ 
was  a  God,  either  dwelling  for  a  season  in  the  man  Jesus,  or 
an  empty  phantom  in  his  shape.  The  design  of  John,  there- 
fore, was  to  overthrow  the  divinity,  and  to  assert  the  simple 
humanity  of  Christ ! 

In  the  second  letter  he  gives  what  he  conceives  to  be  the 
scope  and  sense  of  the  passage,  "There  are  three  bearing 
testimony  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  these  three  are  one." —  "  The  meaning,  then,  is," 
he  says,  "  that  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  are  in  heaven,  bear  testimony ;  and  these  three  testi- 
monies are  one  testimony ;  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  paral- 
lelism in  the  next  verse,  agree  in  one  testimony.  The  testi- 
mony meant  is  that  which  it  is  the  bui'den  of  the  Epistle  to 
prove,  namely,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  ;  meaning,  in  op- 
position to  the  Antichristian  teachers,  that  the  man  Jesus,  and 
not  a  God  dwelling  in  the  man  Jesus,  or  in  the  empty  form 
of  the  man  Jesus,  is  the  Christ." 

The  object  of  the  third  letter  is  to  prove  the  authenticity 
of  the  verse;  in  which,  as  might  be  expected,  there  is  an 
entire  failure.  He  acknowledges  that  he  has  no  new  evi- 
dence to  adduce,  and  his  hypothetical  arguments  and  reason- 


BURGESS.  .  151 

ings  are  unworthy  of  any  attention.  If  Ben  David  wrote  in 
jest,  he  deserves  the  severest  reprobation ;  if  in  earnest,  bis 
folly  deserves  our  pity. 

Bishop  Burgess  published,  in  1825,  "A  Letter  to  the 
Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  St.  David's  on  a  Passage  of  the 
Second  Symbolura  Antiocheuum  of  the  Fourth  Century,  as 
evidence  of  the  Authenticity  of  1  John  v.  7."  This  creed 
was  drawn  up  by  a  Council  held  at  Antioch,  consisting  of 
ninety-seven  bishops,  of  whom  nearly  half  were  Arians. 
After  the  declaration  of  faith  in  one  God,  our  Lord  Jesus, 
and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Creed  adds,  is  flvai  r^  fxev  Ino- 
ard<Tfi  rpia,  rrj  8e  av/jLcfiavia  €v.  "  So  that  they  are  three  in 
person,  and  one  in  consent."  There  is,  no  doubt,  some  simi- 
larity between  this  passage  and  1  John  v.  7 ;  but  similarity 
and  identity  are  very  different  things.  It  is  as  plain  as  possi- 
ble that  the  words  of  the  Creed  are  not  a  quotation  from  the 
disputed  text.  And  although  his  Lordship  argues  that  there 
is  not  a  greater  difference  than  sometimes  obtains  in  the  quo- 
tations made  from  tlie  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  we  do  not 
think  he  proves  his  point,  as  scarcely  any  of  the  words  in  the 
two  passages  are  the  same.  Had  the  passage  existed  in  the 
text  of  John  at  the  time,  it  is  too  plain  and  too  important 
not  to  have  been  quoted  verhatim  et  literatim,  instead  of  be- 
ing only  alluded  to.  I  cannot  perceive  that  the  cause  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  text  gains  anything  from  the  Antiochian 
Creed. 

In  a  large  postscript,  his  Lordship  endeavors  to  adduce 
evidence  from  the  accounts  given  by  Euthymius  and  Socra- 
tes of  tlio  origin  of  the  Arian  controversy,  in  support  of  bis 
view  of  the  (question.  The  reasoning,  however,  of  Porson 
on  this  subject,  from  page  119  to  22G  of  his  letters,  I  do  not 
conceive  the  Bishop  has  at  all  affected.     It  is  not  only  not 


152  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN   V.   7. 

evident  that  Eutliymius  quotes  the  passage ;  but  highly  prob- 
able, as  Porson  shows,  from  another  part  of  his  works,  that 
it  did  not  exist  in  the  MS.  he  used.  "  So  far,"  says  Porson, 
"  therefore  is  Euthymius  Zigabenus  from  having  employed 
this  weapon  against  tlie  heretics,  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
plain  he  never  had  it  to  employ.  It  was  not  to  be  found  in 
the  shops  of  those  artificers  of  faith,  who  furnished  him  with 
the  materials  for  his  Panoply" 

A  considerable  portion  of  the  postscript  is  occupied  with 
replying  to  Oxlee's  Three  Letters  to  Mr.  Nolan.  In  this 
portion  of  his  pamphlet  his  Lordship  adduces  another  Greek 
authority,  —  a  Greek  MS.  too.  What  a  tvprjua  would  re- 
sound through  the  world  if  this  document  was  forthcoming. 
But,  alas !  it  is  only  something  which  was  seen :  when  looked 
for  again  it  was  not  to  be  found,  —  and  is  now  gone.  Such 
seems  to  be  the  fate  of  all  the  evidence  of  which  the  sup- 
porters of  this  passage  boast.     But  hear  the  Bishop  :  — 

"  I  must  not  here  omit  an  important  accession  to  the  direct 
evidence  for  the  verse,  which  I  add  on  the  authority  of  the 
present  learned  Rector  of  Lincoln  College,  in  Oxford.  Hav- 
ing heard  it  reported,  that  a  Greek  MS.  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment containing  the  verse  had  been  known  to  be  extant  in 
the  library  of  Lincoln  College,  not  many  years  since,  and 
that  the  Rector  of  Lincoln  had  spoken  of  it  in  St.  Mary's 
pulpit,  I  wrote  to  the  learned  Rector  on  the  subject,  and  re- 
ceived the  following  answer :  '  Person's  book  never  shook  my 
conviction  of  the  authenticity  of  the  important  verse,  which 
has  so  long  and  laudably  engaged  your  indefatigable  study. 
The  artful  and  superficial  way  in  which  he  treated  the  inter- 
esting subject,  and  his  unmannerly  behavior  to  Mr.  Travis, 
brought  me  some  years  ago  into  St.  Mary's  pulpit,  with  a 
sermon  upon  the  disputed  text ;  which  sermon  I  have  mis- 
laid, and  cannot  find.    What  I  said  about  the  MS.  that  I  had 


QUARTERLY  REVIEW.  153 

seen,  which  contained  the  verse,  I  cannot  accurately  state. 
It  was  a  MS.  in  the  College  Libi-ary,  and  seen  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Dr.  Parsons,  late  Bishop  of  Peterborough ;  but  on 
looking  for  it  when  I  preached  the  sermon,  it  was  not  found, 
nor  can  it  be  found  at  the  present  time."  * 

When  this  manuscript  is  produced,  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  examine  its  character  and  pronounce  on  its  pretensions.f 

To  the  Bishop  and  Ben  David  the  Quarterly  replied  in 
an  able  and  very  respectful  article  in  their  Sixty-fifth  Xura- 
ber,  for  December,  1825.  Here  the  learned  Reviewer,  after 
some  introductory  remarks,  combats  his  Lordship's  assertion 
after  Travis,  "tliat  the  verse  was  extant  in  the  Greek  in  the 
copies  of  "Walafrid  Strabo,"  by  showing  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  Strabo  understood  Greek,  or  that  he  was  the  au- 
thor of  Glossa  Ordinaria,  or  that  he  was  the  author  of  the 
Commentary  on  the  Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and 
that  the  Preface  to  the  Glossa  Ordinaria,  in  which  he  directs 
that  the  Latin  MSS.  should  be  corrected  by  the  Greek,  in- 
stead of  being  written  by  him,  was  written  some  centuries 
after  his  death.  This  is  one  of  the  Bishop's  main  positions, 
—  at  best  it  would  not  prove  a  great  deal,  but  it  i-eally  van- 
ishes into  smoke  when  touched  by  the  finger  of  critical  inves- 
tigation. There  are  some  good  remarks  in  the  article  on  the 
impropriety  of  preferring  the  Latin  to  the  Greek  fathers,  a 
tendency  wliich  the  views  and  classification  of  Griesbach  has 
tended  to  produce.  On  the  internal  evidence  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  in  favor  of  the  verse,  and  the  alleged  grammatical 
difficulties  of  the  passage,  on  the  supposition  of  the  seventh 

*  Burgess's  Letter,  pp.  84,  85. 

t  [Scrivener,  in  his  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Text  of 
the  N.  T.,  (1861,)  p.  459,  note,  remarks:  "  There  can  be  no  question  that 
he  meant  Act.  33,  which  does  not  give  the  verse,  but  has  long  been  known 
to  have  some  connection  with  tiie  Code.K  Montfortiaiius,  whicli  does.''  See 
also  the  Vindication  of  Porson  by  Crilo  Cantahrigicmis,  pp.  058,359.  —  Ed.] 
7* 


154  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

verse  being  spurious,  some  good  observations  occur ;  particu- 
larly on  a  passage  remarkably  similar,  from  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen.  The  learned  critic  also  offers  some  defence  of  Porson, 
in  reply  to  several  of  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Burgess  on  that 
eminent  scholar.  The  Bishop's  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  St. 
David's  is  satisfactorily  shown  to  contain  nothing  that  will 
bear  the  test  of  close  examination,  or  on  which  a  defence  of 
the  passage  can  be  rested.  The  notice  of  Ben  David  is  lit- 
tle more  than  an  intimation  that  he  is  not  in  earnest  on  the 
subject,  and  must  have  smiled  on  finding  the  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  so  much  concerned  to  defend  a  passage  no  longer  ca- 
pable of  support  on  sonnd  critical  principles.  The  whole 
discussion  in  the  Quarterly  Review  is  highly  interesting.  It 
is  carried  on  very  dispassionately,  and  with  great  force  of  ar- 
gument. I  regret  that  my  limits  will  not  allow  me  to  quote 
several  parts  of  the  article ;  but  the  following  passage,  con- 
taining an  answer  to  the  Bishop's  argument  founded  on  the 
Syrabolura  Antiochenum,  deserves  particular  attention.  The 
Bishop's  argument  has  been  already  given ;  the  reply  is  con- 
clusive. 

"In  justice  to  the  cause  which  the  Bishop  defends,  we 
think  it  right  to  state,  that,  his  Lordship  having  communicated 
the  substance  of  his  work  to  several  of  his  right  reverend 
brethren,  the  preceding  argument  appears  to  have,  had  great 
weight  with  them.  In  letters  from  which  we  are  favored 
with  extracts,  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,  Durham,  and 
Hereford,  together  with  other  prelates,  whose  names  are  not 
mentioned,  have  expi-essed  themselves  either  as  almost,  or  as 
entirely,  persuaded  that  the  verse  is  genuine.  With  the  sin- 
cerest  respect  for  the  learning  and  judgment  of  these  emi- 
nent persons,  we  shall  now  venture  to  examine  the  argument. 
TJiey  are  three  in  person,  and  one  in  consent,  —  savors  much 
more  of  an  illative  distinction  of  the  fourth  century,  than  of 


QUARTERLY  REVIEW.  155 

a  simple  dictum  of  the  apostolic  age.  Accordingly,  the 
Bishop  is  obliged  to  omit  '  the  terms  by  which  the  quotation 
is  disguised,'  before  he  can  imagine  the  expression  to  be  de- 
rived from  Scripture.  And  when  the  sentence  has  gone 
through  this  process,  what  remains  ?  Not,  as  his  Lordship 
states,  the  three  are  one ;  but  they  are  three  indeed,  but  also 
one  (ws  ehai  rpla  [xev,  ev  8e).  Now,  without  being  fastidious 
as  to  the  gender  of  the  numeral  (rpeif  or  rpia),  we  affirm  that 
this  is  not  a  quotation  of  1  John  v.  7  {ol  rpetr  ev  etVt),  —  a 
sentence  of  a  totally  different  form.  But  this  is  not  all. 
The  words  so  that,  which  introduce-  the  expression  they  are 
three  in  person,  and  one  in  consent,  would  lead  us  to  suspect 
that  the  sentiment  is  an  inference  from  some  scriptural  au- 
thority just  preceding ;  whereas  we  are  to  suppose,  from  the 
Bishop's  statement,  that  the  avowal  of  a  belief  in  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  immediately  followed  by  the 
expression,  so  that  they  are  three  in  person,  and  one  in  consent. 
Let  us  therefore  refer  to  the  creed  itself,  as  it  appears  in  the 
translation  given  by  his  Lordship. 

" '  "We  believe  in  one  God and  in  one  Lord  Jesus 

Christ and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  given  to  believ- 
ers, for  consolation,  and  sanctification,  and  perfection,  ac- 
cording to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ's  direction  to  his  disciples, 
saying,  Go  ye  unto  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  Father  be- 
ing truly  a  Father,  the  Son  truly  a  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
truly  a  Holy  Ghost ;  the  names  being  given  not  vainly  and 
unmeaningly,  but  accurately  expressing  the  respective  sub- 
sistence (or  person,  viroaTacnv),  order,  and  glory  of  each  of 
those  named  (tuv  6vofj.a(o^(vcov) ;  so  that  they  are  three  in 
subsistence  (or  person,  viroaTaaei)  and  one  in  consent.' — ■ 
(p.  104.) 

"  And  thus  it  is  as  clear  as  words  can  make  it,  that  the  ex- 


156  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN   V.   7. 

pression,  Tlicy  are  three  in  subsistence  (or  person),  and  one 
in  consent,  is  not  a  quotation  of  1  John  v.  7 ;  but  is  derived, 
solely  and  entirely,  from  the  baptismal  commission  in  St. 
Matthew.  We  have  seen  many  weak  arguments  in  defence 
of  the  verse,  but  VFe  trust  his  Lordship  will  excuse  us  if  we 
frankly  say,  that  an  argument  less  eflfective  than  this  it  has 
never  been  our  lot  to  meet  with."  * 

From  the  ability  and  learning  displayed  in  this  last  article 
of  the  Quarterly  Review,  in  which  the  arguments  of  Bishop 
Burgess  are  most  triumphantly  met,  it  might  have  been  an- 
ticipated that  the  Controversy  was  drawing  to  its  close.  But, 
alas,  how  vain  human  expectations  frequently  prove !  The 
debate,  judging  from  publications  that  have  recently  ap- 
peared, seems  as  far  from  a  termination  as  ever.  And,  in- 
deed, on  the  plan  on  which  it  is  now  conducted,  it  may  go  on 
forever.  Tliis  memoir,  therefore,  is  likely  to  close,  while  the 
warfare  still  rages.  But  as  every  important  argument  on 
each  side  has  already  been  noticed,  the  review  of  the  remain- 
ing publications  will  be  as  brief  as  possible. 

From  the  conspicuous  and  decided  part  which  Professor 
Person  took  in  this  Controversy,  his  name  has  been  more  or 
less  mixed  up  with  all  the  discussions  Avhich  have  since  taken 
place.  One  great  object  of  Bishop  Burgess,  in  his  various 
publications,  has  been  to  diminish  the  general  confidence  of 
the  literary  republic,  not  in  the  scholarship  of  Porson,  for 
that  it  would  have  been  vain  to  touch,  but  in  the  accuracy  of 
his  acquaintance  witli  biblical  manuscripts,  and  the  correct- 
ness of  some  of  his  data  and  reasonings  in  this  celebrated 
Controversy.  The  Bishop  charges  that  distinguished  scholar 
with  "mistakes,"  with  unfounded  opinions  respecting  the 
"  genius  of  tlie  Greek  language,"  with  making  "  disingenuous 
•  Quarterly  Review,  Dec.  1S25,  pp.  101,  102. 


CRITO   CANTABRIGIENSIS.  157 

quotations,"  with  "deficient  knowledge  of  the  Greek  fathers," 
&c.,  &c. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  among  the  friends,  or 
disciples,  or  admirers  of  Porson,  some  one  should  step  for- 
ward in  his  defence.  It  was  due  to  his  character,  as  a  scholar 
of  the  first  order,  as  a  critic  distinguished  for  his  acuteness 
and  his  comprehension,  and  for  the  fearless  honesty  with 
■which  he  avowed  and  defended  his  opinions,  that  his  reputa- 
tion should  be  vindicated  from  unmerited  charges.  He  has 
met  with  a  vindicator  in  all  respects  worthy  of  him,  and  of 
the  cause  which  he  has  undertaken  to  defend,  —  one  whom 
Porson  liimself  would  have  been  pleased  to  acknowledge  as 
a  friend  and  a  coadjutor.  I  refer  to  the  author  of  the  fol- 
lowing worji :  — 

"A  Vindication  of  the  Literary  Character  of  Professor 
Person,  from  the  Animadversions  of  the  Right  Rev.  Thomas 
Burgess,  D.D.  F.R.S.  F.A.S.  P.R.S.L.  Lord  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  in  various  Publications  on  1  John  v.  7.  By  Cri- 
to  Cantabrigiensis.  Cambridge,  1827."  8vo.  Report  ascribes 
this  learned  and  able  volume  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  [Thomas] 
Turton,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  in  that  University.* 
He  who  studies  the  articles  in  the  Quarterly  Review,  and 
Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  will  not,  I  apprehend,  be  very  wide  of 
the  mark,  if  he  ascribe  both  to  the  same  individual.  But 
the  writer,  be  who  he  may,  is  of  less  importance  than  the 
book ;  though,  certainly,  he  has  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of 
this  production  of  his  pen. 

The  discussion  is  tliroughout  conducted  in  the  most  gentle- 
manly and  delicate  manner.  In  his  mode  of  carrying  on  the 
Controversy  he  has  improved  greatly  upon  Porson,  as  there 
scarcely  ever  occurs  an  expression  calculated  to  wound  or  of- 

*  [Afterwards  (1842)  Dean  of  Westminster,  and  (1845)  Bishop  of  Ely.— 
Ed.] 


158  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1  JOHN  V.  7. 

fend.  He  is  calm  and  dignified  ;  but  firm  and  conclusive  in 
all  his  reasonings.  I  regret  that  it  is  impossible  to  do  any 
justice,  even  to  the  bare  statement  of  his  argument.  The 
work  is  by  no  means  restricted  to  a  defence  or  vindication 
of  Person ;  on  the  contrary,  it  embraces  the  whole  range  of 
the  Controversy,  and  discovers  the  author's  familiarity  with 
all  its  ramifications  and  details."  The  conclusion  of  the  vol- 
ume, in  which  Crito  vindicates  Person's  qualifications  as  a 
Scripture  critic,  is  all  I  shall  quote  as  an  illustration  of  the 
style  and  manner  of  the  author,  rather  than  as  a  view  of  the 
contents  of  his  book.  Those  qualifications  are  thus  called  in 
question  by  Bishop  Burgess. 

"  The  numbers  in  array  against  the  verse  are  not  so  nu- 
merous as  the  advocates  for  it.  No  one  country  has  entered 
so  frequently  and  fully  into  this  inquiry  as  our  own.  And 
(excepting  living  writers)  who  is  there  to  oppose  to  the  learn- 
ing of  Selden,  Pearson,  Hammond,  Stillingfleet,  Wallis,  Bull, 
INIill,  Waterland,  and  Horsley  ?  I  do  not  except  Mr.  Person, 
when  opposed  to  the  great  names  before  mentioned,  on  such 
a  subject  as  our  present,  which  does  not  admit  the  exercise  of 
that  peculiar  sagacity  which  distinguished  his  conjectures  on 
the  text  of  the  ancient  Greek  Poets,  and  the  laws  of  Greek 
metre,  and  the  peculiarities  of  Greek  idiom ;  but  requires 
other  aids  of  learning,  human  and  divine,  in  which  Pearson 
and  Bull  had  no  superior.  Mr.  Porson,  indeed,  brought 
nothing  new  to  this  inquiry  but  what  is,  in  a  great  degree, 
extraneous  to  it,  —  his  wit,  and  humor,  and  dexterity  in  ex- 
posing the  inaccuracy  of  his  opponent.  He  has  brought  no 
objection  to  the  passage,  which  had  not  been  anticipated  by 
Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Whiston,  Emlyn,  or  Dr.  Benson."  (  Vind. 
p.  57.) 

"  Wiien  Mr.  Boyle  mentioned  some  eminent  writers,  whose 
sentiments  he  stated  to  be  in  accordance  with  his  own,  Dr. 


CRITO  CANTABRIGIENSIS.  159 

Bentley  replied,  —  that,  '  if  such  were  their  opinion,  yet  it 
signified  nothing,  —  for  he  went  not  by  autliorities  but  by 
truth.  If  they  believed  so,  they  were  certainly  mistaken.' 
We  know,  indeed,  that  scholars  of  high  character  have  fre- 
quently judged  erroneously  of  ancient  works.  'What  clum- 
sy cheat?,'  as  the  same  great  critic  remarks,  '  those  Sibylline 
Oracles,  now  extant,  and  Aristeas's  story  of  the  Septuagint, 
passed  without  control,  even  among  very  learned  men.'  Sel- 
den,  the  fir=t  writer  on  Bishop  Burgess's  list,  founds  an  argu- 
ment in  Chronology  upon  the  Letters  of  Phalaris,  as  if  they 
had  really  been  written  by  the  Tyrant :  —  shall  we,  on  that 
account,  hesitate  to  reject  them,  as  spurious  productions? 
Pearson  draws  up  a  long  and  learned  note  to  vindicate  the 
orthodox  reading  of  1  Tim.  iii.  IG.  After  employing,  on  that 
occasion,  principles  of  criticism  which  would  overturn  1  John 
v.  7  in  an  instant,  he  quotes  the  latter  incomparably  more 
dubious  text,  without  a  word  in  its  support:  —  can  that  be  a 
reason  v.'hy  we  should  uphold  it?  —  The  learning  of  Ham- 
mond, Stillingfleet,  Wallis,  and  Bull  is  readily  acknowledged; 
but  if  any  one  will  examine  their  observations  on  the  contro- 
verted text,  he  will  find  that  but  a  scanty  portion  of  it  has 
been  brought  to  bear  upon  that  point :  —  and  what  is  their 
authority  compared  with  the  arguments  of  Mill  and  Benge- 
lius?— ^ Waterland  is  said  to  have  become  a  convert  to  the 
opinion  that  the  verse  is  genuine,  in  consequence  of  Twells's 
defence  of  it,  —  a  story  which,  for  the  credit  of  Waterland, 
is,  I  hope,  not  true :  —  but  what  has  Waterland  produced  in 
behalf  of  the  verse?  —  Pearson  and  Bull,  indeed,  are  the 
champions,  whose  very  jjresence  is  deemed  sufficient  to  put 
an  end  to  contention  ;  and  I  cannot  but  suspect  that,  while 
his  Lordship  is  contemplating  PousON  on  one  side  of  the 
question,  and  those  great  men  on  the  other,  a  feeling  gradu- 
ally comes  over  him  somewhat  similar  to  that  which  pre- 


160  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

vailed  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  —  a  sort  of  horror  at  the  idea 
that  '  Grammarians  should  take  upon  them  to  teach  Bishops 
and  Divines.'  En  rein  indignam,  said  the  adversaries  of 
Erasmus,  —  Nos,  qui  jam  tot  annis  sumus  Doctores  sacrce 
Theologice,  denuo  cogimur  adire  ludos  Uterarios* 

"  But,  according  to  the  learned  prelate,  an  inquiry  into  the 
genuineness  of  this  famous  text  '  does  not  admit  the  exercise 
of  that  peculiar  sagacity  which  distinguished  Mr.  Porson '  in 
other  subjects.  Now  surely  there  is  something  very  para- 
doxical in  the  notion,  that  sagacity,  however  refined,  should 
form  an  obstacle,  as  it  were,  to  success  in  any  department  of 
literature.  If  his  Lordship  had  contented  himself  with  saying 
that  inquiries  like  the  present  do  not  absolutely  require  an 
extraordinary  degree  of  sagacity,  the  truth  of  the  position 
might,  perhaps,  have  been  allowed.  Much,  no  doubt,  that 
is  deserving  of  attention,  may  be  accomplished  without  it. 
But  when  we  consider  the  expanse  over  which  even  a  par- 
tial view  of  the  subject  has  actually  conducted  us,  and  the 
dark  and  dreary  regions  through  which  we  might  have  been 
led,  we  cannot,  I  think,  but  feel  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  a  critical  sagacity  like  that  of  Mr.  Porson.  The  acute- 
ness  of  his  understanding  was  not  confined  to  '  the  laws  of 
Greek  metre  and  the  peculiarities  of  Greek  idiom ' ;  and  in 
researches  into  Ecclesiastical  antiquity,  —  where  thei'e  are 
works  of  dubious  origin  to  be  estimated,  —  where,  in  pro- 
ductions of  which  the  authenticity  is  undoubted,  there  are 
obscure  passages  to  be  illustrated,  and  corrupt  ones  to  be  re- 
stored, —  where,  in  fact,  there  are  discrepancies  of  all  kinds 
to  be  reconciled,  —  we  may  confidently  assert  that  the  lead- 
ing qualities  of  Mr.  Porson's  mind  were  exactly  those  from 
which  the  world  might  have  anticipated  the  hapj^iest  results. 

*  [That  is:  —  "It  is  a  shameful  thing;  we,  who  for  so  manj-  years  have 
been  Doctors  (or  teachers)  of  sacred  Theology,  are  again  sent  to  school."  — 
Ed.] 


CRITO   CAKTABRIGIEXSIS.  161 

"  Pearson  and  Bull  deserve  all  their  fame  for  '  learning, 
human  and  divine';  but,  as  they  never  took  a  prominent  part 
in  defence  of  the  verse,  why  should  their  acquirements  be 
brought  forward  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  those  of  Mr. 
Person  into  the  shade  ?  The  learned  prelate  has  long  been 
acquainted  with  the  Letters  to  Travis ;  he  has  had  the  most 
ample  means  of  discovering  their  vulnerable  points ;  and  he 
has  finally  selected  those,  I  conclude,  which  he  considered 
the  most  open  to  attack  :  —  and  yet  I  will  venture  to  affirm, 
that,  numerous  as  are  the  observations  on  which  he  has 
thought  proper  to  animadvert,  there  is  not  one  instance  in 
which  Mr.  Porson  appears  deficient  in  learning,  human  or 
divine.  Of  the  truth  of  this  proposition  the  reader  has  now 
an  opportunity  to  judge  for  himself. 

'•  But  Mr.  Porson,  it  is  alleged,  advanced  no  new  objec- 
tion to  the  verse.  —  His  purpose  was  to  state  the  principal 
grounds  of  the  controversy,  and  to  examine  Mr.  Travis's 
arguments.  He  hinted,  however,  that  if  anything  which  had 
not  been  adduced  should  occur  to  him  in  the  course  of  his 
investigation,  he  would  not  fail  to  bring  it  to  light ;  and  in 
this  he  fulfilled  his  promise.  The  truth  is,  that  arguments 
and  objections,  when  urged  by  him,  assume  a  new  character, 
and  produce  a  new  effect.  He  deals  not  in  trite  and  vague 
generalities.  "What  had  before  been  thrown  out  in  the  gross 
is  thoroughly  sifted,  and  applied  to  its  proper  use.  Whether 
intent  upon  Greek  manuscripts,  or  ancient  versions,  or  early 
fathers,  his  power  of  discrimination  is  constantly  on  the  alert. 
Nothing  seems  to  escape  him  by  its  minuteness ;  and  yet, 
whatever  subject  he  is  discussing,  he  places  the  whole  of  it 
bei'ore  the  reader,  in  all  its  ])earings.  Let  a  man  read  every- 
thing that  had  been  written  on  the  controverted  text  previous- 
ly to  the  time  of  JMr.  Por.-on,  and  when  he  has  afterwards 
perused  the  '  Letters  to  Travis,'  he  will  confess  thai  to  be  the 


162  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

work  from  which  he  has  derived  the  fullest  information  on 
the  subject.  Such  are  the  effects  of  great  talents,  when  ex- 
ercised even  on  common  materials. 

"  There  is  one  quality  of  the  mind,  unnoticed  by  Bishop 
Burgess,  in  which  it  may  be  confidently  maintained  that  Mr. 
Porson  '  had  no  superior '  —  I  mean,  the  most  pure  and  in- 
flexible love  of  truth.  Under  the  influence  of  this  principle, 
lie  \\as  cautious,  and  patient,  and  persevering  in  his  research- 
es ;  and  scrupulously  accurate  in  stating  facts  as  he  found 
them.  All  who  were  intimate  with  him  bear  witness  to  this 
noble  part  of  his  character ;  and  his  works  confirm  the  testi- 
mony of  his  friends.  In  a  word,  if,  in  a  General  Council  x>f 
Scholars,  an  individual  were  to  be  selected  and  sent  forth 
to  take  a  survey  of  any  region  of  antiquity,  profane,  or  ec- 
clesiastical, it  is  quite  certain  that  the  person  who  should  be 
found  to  possess  Mr.  Person's  endowments  would  command 
every  vote."  * 

It  would  have  been  pleasant  to  have  taken  leave  of  the 
Controversy  with  this  very  beautiful  piece  of  writing  and  ar- 
gument. But  transitions  are  common  in  this  world.  From 
the  summits  of  Parnassus  it  is  not  uncommon  to  be  at  once 
precipitated  into  the  bogs  and  quagmires  which  surround  its 
base.  Crito  Cantabrigiensis  produced  a  literary  curiosity, — 
a  Reply  to  a  book  before  it  was  published ;  which  enabled 
Crito  to  notice,  in  the  answered  book  itself,  the  answer  by  an- 
ticipation. In  acting  thus,  the  author  has  given  the  chief 
I^roof  which  he  has  furnished  .of  his  wisdom  ;  for  it  was  cer- 
tainly much  easier  to  answer  Crito  before  he  appeared,  than 
it  would  have  been  afterwards.  "  A  Specimen  of  an  in- 
tended Publication,  which  was  to  have  been  entitled,  a  Vin- 
dication of  them  that  have  the  rule  over  us,  for  their  not 
*  Pp.  341-348. 


HUYSHE.  163 

having  cut  out  the  disputed  Passage,  1  John  v.  7,  8,  from 
the  Authorized  Version.  Being  an  Examination  of  the  first 
six  Pages  of  Professor  Person's  IVth  Letter  to  Archdeacon 
Travis,  of  the  MSS.  used  by  P.  Stephens.  By  Francis 
^  Huyshe.  London.  1827."  8vo. 

The  title-page  alone  of  this  singular,  but  vaporing  pam- 
phlet, I  should  think  would  satisfy  most  readers  of  the  au- 
thor's competence  for  the  task  he  has  undertaken.  I  appre- 
hend, whether  Mr.  Huyshe  is  aware  of  it  or  not,  that  the 
time  has  passed  away  when  "  those  who  are  over  us  "  had 
an  exclusive  right  to  determine  what  is  or  is  not  the  Bible. 
Does  the  man  know  that  he  lives  in  the  nineteenth  century  ? 
Has  he  so  little  acquaintance  with  "  the  march  of  intellect,"  as 
to  be  unaware  that  the  authority  of  the  whole  bench  of  bishops 
is,  in  such  a  question,  not  worth  a  straw  ?  But  to  the  ques- 
tion, —  Mr,  Huyshe  has  paid  some  attention  to  it,  and,  had  he 
possessed  a  portion  of  sobriety  of  mind,  might  have  written 
what  would  be  worth  reading ;  but  he  so  revels  and  riots  in 
the  subject  as  to  excite  serious  alarms  for  the  soimdness  of 
his  intellect.  He  defends  "  Stephanus,"  and  his  text  too, 
with  some  ingenuity,  though  without  success,  and  with  little 
advantage  to  the  apocryphal  text.  He  deals  about  chai'ges 
of  "  falsifying,  bandying,  and  gulling,"  at  a  great  rate ;  and 
"  flays  and  si)lits  open  "  the  false  charges  preferred  by  Gib- 
bon and  Person,  and  so  ably  answered  by  Travis  and  Burgess. 
What  is  more,  he  threatens  the  world  with  another  visitation. 
But  let  his  advertisement  tell  the  story  of  his  recent  adven- 
tures, and  of  his  future  exploits,  — 

"  And  when  he  next  doth  ride  abroad, 
May  we  be  there  to  see." 

"  This  publication  is  occasioned  by  an  advertisement  in  the 
newspapers,  which  announced  that  we  might  expect  a  De- 
fence of  Mr.  Porson  against  Bishop  Burgess,  by  Crito  Can- 


164  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7, 

tabrigiensis.  My  veneration  of  the  abilities  and  acquire- 
ments of  ]Mr.  Porson  is  unbounded :  '  forty  thousand '  sons 
'  could  not,  with  all  their  quantity  of  love,  make  up  my  sum.' 
I  can  sjieak  of  him  only,  as  Dr.  Parr  does,  *  Richard  Poi-son, 
Tov  navv  BavfiacTTov.'  But  if  you  talk  of  '  an  invincible  love 
of  truth,  an  inflexible  probity,'  you  sap  the  foundation  of  my 
idolatry ;  and  he  stands  within  the  prospect  of  comparison 
with  his  blundering  correspondent.  The  reader  has  before 
him  a  specimen  of  my  reasons  for  saying,  that,  if  the  world 
was  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will,  his  own  understanding 
did  not  bow  to  that  will.  And  I  have  to  make  my  grateful 
acknowledgments  to  Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  for  his  irresistible 
excitement  to  this  part  of  my  proposed  work ;  as  the  whole 
probably  would  otherwise  have  been  deferred  till  the  night 
cometh  Avhen  no  man  can  work.  Should  he  think  this  not 
sufficient  to  establish  my  opinion,  he  shall  have  more  of  it; 
and  he  shall  have  it  too,  upon  the  Complutensian  edition,  and 
the  Ravian  MS. ;  upon  Erasmus's  third  edition,  and  the  MS. 
that  was  sent  to  him  from  England ;  upon  the  kindred  read- 
ing discovered  in  the  Montfortian  MS. ;  upon  the  West  Afri- 
can recension  ;  and  above  all,  upon  the  internal  testimony  of 
the  passage,  —  till  he  cries,  '  hold,  enough.'  But  I  am  not 
without  my  hopes  that  the  favor  conferred  upon  me  by  Crito 
Cantabrigiensis  may  be  repaid  by  my  saving  him  the  expense 
of  paper  and  print ;  and  I  feel  confident  of  being  allowed  to 
doze  out  whatever  may  yet  remain  of  the  evening  of  life 
without  interruption  from  any  other  quarter.  I  have  not  to 
learn  the  truth  of  what  the  Trojan  lady  said, 

Xoyoy  yup  e/c  t   abo^ovvrcov  ia>v 
KciK  TU)v  doKovvTcov  QVTos  ov  TOVTou  aOevet. 

And  I  am  satisfied  with  thus  publicly  entering  my  protest  on 
these  heads ;  and  with  having  furnished  a  clew,  by  which  any 


CRITO  CANTABRIGIENSIS.  165 

one  who  will  use  a  little  industry  may  extricate  himself  from 
that  labyrinth  of  fraud,  which  nearly  two  centuries  have  now 
been  constructing  round  Stephanus  and  the  received  text."  * 

So  much  importance  did  the  author  attach  to  his  perform- 
ance, —  nothing,  by  the  way,  peculiar  to  Mr.  Huyshe,  —  that 
he  transmitted  it,  with  a  printed  circular,  to  all  "  those  who 
have  the  rule  over  him."  This  was  like  a  dutiful  son  of  the 
Church.  "We  dare  say  that  most  of  their  Lordships  would 
allow  him  "  to  doze  out  the  remains  of  the  evening  of  his 
life,"  without  interruption  on  their  part,  always  excepting  the 
ever-watchful  Bishop  of  Salisbury ;  who  certainly  would  not 
fail  to  acknowledge  the  services  of  Mr.  Huyshe.  Crito  is,  in 
his  usual  style,  very  civil,  but  very  pointed.  Whether  he 
has  given  Mr.  Huyshe  his  quietus,  I  cannot  say,  but  two 
years  have  passed  since  he  last  roused  himself;  from  which 
we  should  hope  that  the  old  gentleman  is  dozing  on  his  eve- 
ning very  pleasantly.  Peace  be  to  his  slumbers !  May  they 
be  lasting  and  undisturbed  ! 

The  following  passage,  at  the  end  of  the  Appendix  to  Cri- 
to's  Vindication,  gives  the  sum  of  the  Controversy  with  Mr. 
Huyshe,  and  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  whole  difficulty 
on  which  he  makes  such  a  parade  of  argument. 

"  We  may  here,  for  a  moment,  revert  to  the  object  of  all 
this  zeal  to  have  it  believed  that  Robert  Stephens  had  two 
sets  of  MSS.  —  Mr.  Huyshe  seeing,  distinctly  enough,  that 
none  of  the  fifteen  marked  MSS.  contained  1  John  v.  7,  was 
resolved  that  Robert  Stephens  should  have  MS.  authority 
for  the  verse ;  and  so,  presented  him  with  sixteen  additional 
MSS.,  some  one  or  more  of  which  contained  the  verse  in  the 
form  assigned  to  it  by  Stephens's  press.  Now,  let  us  not  at- 
tribute to  imaginary  causes  effects  which  causes  known  to 
have  existed  are  sufficient  to  have  produced.     The  fifth  edi- 

*  Pp.  iii.,  iv. 


166  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

tion  of  Erasmus  was  the  basis  of  Robert  Stephens's  editions. 
The  Complutensian  edition,  which  was  a  MS.  in  Stephens's 
estimation,  contained  the  disputed  passage ;  and  therefore, 
with  him,  was  authority  for  its  insertion.  Erasmus  had 
finally  brought  the  verse  into  the  best  shape  in  which  it  had 
then  appeared;  and  accordingly  Robert  Stephens  inserted 
the  verse,  with  only  one  variation  from  the  text  of  Eras- 
mus :  —  changing  to  Trvevfia  ayiov  into  to  ayiov  rrvevfia,  which, 
as  a  scholar,  he  knew  to  be  the  better  Greek,  and,  as  a  critic, 
to  be  the  reading  of  the  Complutensian  edition.  This  surely 
is  an  easy  and  obvious  method  of  accounting  for  Robert  Ste- 
phens's proceeding  with  regard  to  the  verse. 

"  In  subordination  to  his  grand  object,  Mr.  Huyshe  has 
stated  his  opinions  on  a  variety  of  topics,  the  discussion  of 
which  would  lead  me  beyond  the  limits  I  have  prescribed  to 
myself.  "Whether  Stephens's  semicircle  was  misplaced  by  the 
collator  of  the  manuscripts,  or  the  compositor  of  the  volume; 
and  whether  by  accident  or  from  design,  —  whether  the  MSS. 
were  collated  solely  by  Henry  Stephens,  or  by  Henry  Ste- 
phens with  the  assistance  of  others,  —  whether  Robert  Ste- 
phens's MS.  /S  was  one  and  the  same  with  the  Beza  MS.  now 
at  Cambridge,  or  merely  'the  same  for  all  critical  purposes,'  — 
these  points,  and  others  of  still  less  consequence,  the  reader 
will  easily  forgive  me  if  I  do  not  attempt  to  determine.  It 
may  be  sufficient  to  observe  that,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
judgment,  the  decisions  of  Mr.  Huyshe  on  these  subjects  — 
although  accompanied  by  the  most  unwarrantable  reflections 
upon  the  living  and  the  dead  —  are  not  often  supported  by  a 
substantial  reason. 

"  To  conclude,  Mr.  Huyshe  has  mentioned  the  Compluten- 
sian edition,  the  third  edition  of  I^rasmus,  the  Berlin  and 
Dublin  MSS.,  the  African  recension,  and  the  internal  evi- 
dence, —  as  matters  about  which  he  is  quite  prepared  for 


OXLEE.  1G7 

contontion.  Happily,  however,  he  has  given  the  form  of 
words  by  which  he  may  be  induced  to  cherish  the  thoughts 
of  peace.  AvaiHng  myself,  therefore,  of  that  form,  I  say, 
with  the  utmost  sincerity,  — '  Hold,  Enough.' "  * 

In  defence  of  himself  and  of  his  former  publication,  the 
Rev.  John  Oxlee  published,  in  1828,  "Two  Letters,  respect- 
fully addressed  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  in  defence 
of  certain  Positions  of  the  Author,  relative  to  1  John  v.  7 ; 
in  which,  also,  the  recent  Arguments  of  his  Lordship  for  the 
Verse  are  shown  to  be  groundless  Surmises,  and  evident  Mis- 
takes, as  well  in  Church  History  as  in  Criticism."  To  Mr. 
Oxlee's  views  and  labors  in  this  Controversy  we  have  al- 
ready adverted.  His  Lordship  had  remarked  on  the  temper 
in  which  he  had  conducted  the  discussion,  which  was  proba- 
bly felt  to  be  the  more  offensive  from  the  weight  of  Mr.  Ox- 
lee's talents  and  learning.  In  the  two  letters  now  addressed 
to  Bishop  Burgess,  he  defends  the  ground  taken  in  his  former 
Letters  very  ably  and  very  dispassionately.  Every  point  ad- 
verted to  by  the  Bishop,  either  in  his  animadversions  on  Ox- 
lee, or  otherwise,  in  support  of  the  passage,  is  discussed  and 
shown  to  be  either  incorrect  or  inapplicable,  —  to  be  founded 
in  ignorance,  or  to  leave  out  of  view  some  circumstance  which 
entirely  alters  its  nature,  —  the  new  evidence,  as  well  as  the 
old,  is  disposed  of  in  a  manner  that  admits  not  of  successful 
reply.  The  Montfbrt  MS.,  the  Panoplia  Dogmatica  of  Eu- 
thymius  Zigabenus,  the  Complexiones  of  Cassiodorus,  the 
Critical  Edition  of  Jerome's  Version  by  Vallarsius,  the  Ve- 
rona, Harleian,  Wolfenbiittel,  and  other  MSS.  are  shown  to 
afford  no  satisfactory  evidence  in  support  of  the  passage. 
The  reasoning  of  liis  Lordship  respecting  the  Symbolura 
Autiochenum  and  Fulgentius  is  also  entirely  demolished. 
*  Crito  Cantab.,  pp.  402-404. 


168  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

His  notice  of  Mr.  Huyshe  is  worthy  of  a  place  in  this  re- 
view. 

"  Though  I  cannot  congratulate  him  on  the  display  either 
of  his  learning  or  of  his  reasoning,  nor  yet  of  his  modesty, 
it  would  be  extremely  invidious  not  to  notice  his  prudence 
and  his  foresight,  in  endeavoring  to  secure  to  himself  the  ad- 
miration of  the  bishops ;  and  in  furnishing  the  particulars  of 
his  address,  so  that,  whenever  he  shall  be  wanted,  they  may 
know  where  to  find  him.  The  Circular,  he  may  rest  satis- 
fied, for  the  sake  of  this  one  circumstance  only,  will  be  care- 
fully deposited  amongst  the  most  valuable  of  their  papers. 
Champions  of  his  calibre,  who  can  dare  to  penetrate  the 
camp  of  the  enemy,  and  can  fetch  away  the  opima  spolia, 
are  invaluable  coadjutors  in  the  field  of  controversy ;  and,  as 
the  Hookers  of  their  day,  are  sure  to  be  drawn  out  of  their 
retirement,  from  their  little  sequestered  parishes,  in  order  to 
fight  the  battles  of  the  Church,  and  to  receive  at  her  hands 
that  preferment  which  she  has  to  bestow,  as  the  reward  of 
their  prowess.  Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive  a 
design  more  woi-thy  of  the  pencil  than  this  feat,  intimated  to 
us  in  the  circular,  of  Mr.  Huyshe  dragging  forth  to  the  light, 
completely  vanquished  and  put  in  chains,  that  infernal  dog. 
Professor  Porson  ;  whilst,  in  another  part,  we  behold  the 
OPIMA  SPOLIA,  modestly  laid  by  our  champion  at  the  feet  of 
the  Church;  who,  justly  proud  of  her  son,  is  preparing  to 
decorate  his  valor  with  the  first  honors  at  her  disposal. 

"  Before  taking  leave  of  Mr.  Huyshe,  I  would  beg  to  ask, 
on  what  Christian  principle  he  has  attempted  to  connect  the 
defence  of  the  disputed  passage  with  that  of  the  Church  ;  and 
to  treat  its  opponents  as  inimical  to  their  mother  ?  If  I  may 
be  allowed  to  state  my  own  case,  I  can  say  with  much  truth, 
that,  in  opposing  it,  I  have  acted  with  a  view  to  nothing  else 
than  to  the  honor  of  the  Christian  Church.     The  conduct  of 


BURGESS.  169 

Mr.  Huyslie  and  his  fellow-champions  is  what  the  fathers  of 
the  Church  would  have  universally  condemned.  They  would 
have  deemed  it  a  ciume  of  no  ordinary  magnitude  to  deliver 
to  posterity,  for  the  original  sacred  text,  what  they  themselves 
had  not  duly  received  from  their  predecessors,  nor  could 
find  in  their  Greek  manuscripts.  Their  memory  is  grossly 
insulted  by  the  supposition,  that  they  suffered  a  text  of  such 
vast  im^jortauce  in  the  Trinitarian  controversy  to  be  lost 
from  their  copies  of  the  Greek  Scriptures.  The  character 
of  the  Church  docent  as  the  guardian  of  Holy  Writ  is  no 
otherwise  to  be  defended,  than  by  denying  the  possibility  of 
such  an  occurrence  taking  place.  I  maintain,  therefore,  that 
in  this  instance  the  opponents  of  the  verse  are  the  true  sons 
of  the  Church ;  and  that  they  alone  deserve  well  at  her  hands 
for  having  used  their  best  endeavors  to  remove  the  interpo- 
lation." * 

I  must  now  hasten  to  a  conclusion  of  this  lengthened  series 
of  articles,  by  briefly  noticing  the  remaining  publications.  In 
the  present  year  appeared,  "A  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Thos.  Bey- 
non,  Archdeacon  of  Cardigan,  in  reply  to  a  Vindication  of  the 
Literary  Character  of  Professor  Porson,  by  Crito  Cantabri- 
giensis :  and  in  further  proof  of  the  Authenticity  of  1  John 
V.  7.  By  Thomas  Burgess,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Salisbury."  8vo. 
His  Lordship's  tenacity  of  life  in  this  cause  is  certainly  tlie 
most  remarkable  feature  in  his  character.  He  is  entitled  to 
much  credit  for  the  sincerity  and  zeal  with  which  he  main- 
tains and  avows  his  convictions.  But  with  every  disposition 
to  resi)ect  his  motives  and  intentions,  it  is  impossible  to  feel 
respect  for  his  judgment  after  so  much  has  been  done  to  pro- 
duce conviction  without  any  avail.  His  Lordship  persists  in 
repeating  the  same  things,  after  they  have  been  explained  or 
*  Pp.  120 -m. 


170  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.   7. 

confuted,  till  his  opponents  have  nothing  further  to  say.  In 
the  most  unaccountable  manner,  he  converts  the  negative 
evidence  in  opposition  to  the  verse  —  that  is,  its  absence 
from  manuscripts,  versions,  and  fathers  —  into  positive  evi- 
dence in  its  support ;  and  on  this  strange  fallacy  builds  the 
principal  part  of  his  whole  superstructure  of  defence.  There 
is  no  arguing  with  this  kind  of  proof. 

The  plan  of  the  Bishop's  publications  is  admirably  calcu- 
lated to  raise  a  cloud  of  dust  around  the  question.  It  is 
scai'cely  possible  to  get  a  clear  view  of  it,  from  the  mul- 
titude of  points  which  are  introduced.  For  instance,  in  the 
last  publication,  m'C  have  first  an  introduction ;  then  follows  a 
series  of  tables  of  contents ;  then  comes  a  preface  of  thirty- 
five  pages ;  after  this  are  forty  pages  of  notes  on  this  intro- 
duction ;  we  have  then  the  Letter,  which,  though  announced 
as  the  publication,  is  literally  buried  between  the  introduction 
and  the  appendix  of  the  work,  and  is  the  least  part  of  the 
whole ;  after  the  letter,  which  consists  of  thirty-two  pages,  is 
a  postscript  of  twenty-two  pages ;  and  after  tantoti  comes 
another  sort  of  postscript  of  thirteen  pages  more.  If  this  is 
not  writing  "  about  it  and  about  it"  till  all  men  may  justly  be 
led  "  to  doubt  it,"  we  do  not  know  what  the  tendency  of  such 
sort  of  writing  and  reasoning  is.  It  is  injurious  to  the  Bish- 
op's reputation  for  learning  and  candor,  and  much  more  inju- 
rious to  the  cause  of  truth  than  he  seems  to  be  aware  of. 

Having,  I  apprehend,  tired  my  readers,  and  nearly  tired 
myself,  I  thouglit  here  to  have  shortly  summed  up  and  con- 
cluded. But  I  have  just  procured  and  read,  with  all  the  at- 
tention and  impartiality  in  my  power,  a  publication  for  which 
Bishop  Burgess  has  expressed  many  an  anxious  desire.  On 
which,  therefore,  I  must  bestow  a  few  remarks. 

"New  Criticisms  on  the  celebrated  Text,  1  John  v.  7.  A 
Synodical  Lecture  by  Francis  Anthony  Knittel,  Counsellor 


KNITTEL.  171 

to  the  Consistory,  and  General  Superintendent  of  the  Grand 
Duchy  of  Brunswick  Liinebourg.  Published  at  Brunswick 
in  1785.  Translated  from  the  original  German,  by  William 
Alleyn  Evanson,M.A,  London."  [1829.]  8vo.  All  parties 
must  feel  their  obligations  to  Mr.  Evanson  for  having  brought 
out,  in  an  English  translation,  this  curious  work.  The  sub- 
ject seems  rather  a  strange  one  for  "  a  synodical  lecture," 
which  I  fancy  must  have  been  the  exemplar  of  Bishop  Bur- 
gess, when  he  made  it  the  subject  of  a  charge  to  his  clergy. 
That  charge,  by  the  by,  his  Lordship  has  promised  to'  pub- 
lish ;  so  that  something  more  may  still  be  expected  from  the 
fruitful  pen  of  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury.  Had  Mr.  Evanson 
not  prefixed  a  preftice  to  Knittel,  he  would  have  consulted 
his  reputation  as  a  scholar ;  had  he  suppressed  the  conclu- 
sion of  it,  he  would  have  consulted  his  reputation  as  a  man 
of  candor  and  a  Christian.  That  conclusion  can  sting  none 
but  the  writer  himself  Let  him  reflect  on  his  own  consist- 
ency in  denouncing  the  Apocrypha,  and  yet  reading  it  as 
the  lessons  of  instruction  to  the  Church  of  God;  protesting 
against  its  incorporation  and  circulation  among  the  inspired 
Scriptures,  and  defending  a  text  as  certainly  spurious  as  any 
of  the  apocryphal  books,  before  he  presume  to  denounce  men 
whose  character  for  integrity  and  zeal  for  truth  are  at  least 
as  well  known  and  as  much  entitled  to  respect  as  his  own. 

Of  Knittel,  after  patiently  examining  his  statements  and 
arguments,  I  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion  than  that  at 
which  Michaelis  arrived,  "  that  he  throws  no  additional  light 
on  the  sub)(.'ct."  Apart  from  the  controversy,  his  work  con- 
tains some  useful  information  on  various  subjects,  elicited 
with  genuine  German  industry,  and  set  forth  with  due  parade 
of  logic,  of  learned  textual  stuflUng,  and  marginal  reftrence 
and  quotation.  Under  the  head  of  "  Greek  and  Latin  Man- 
uscripts discovered  which  support  1  John  v.  7,"  I  expected  to 


1.72  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1   JOHN  V.  7. 

find  something  about  MSS.  which  contained  the  text;  but, 
to  ray  great  surprise,  he  refers  to  three  MSS.  which,  by  his 
own  account,  only  swell  the  number  of  codices  which  do  not 
contain  the  passage.  On  the  first  of  these  manuscripts,  after 
a  great  many  words,  he  says  :  — 

"  This  codex  augments  the  list  of  those  which  omit  1  John 
V.  7.  At  the  same  time  I  must  observe,  that  the  copyist  fre- 
quently omits  passages  of  the  text  of  1  John,  but  in  such  a 
manner  as  evinces  both  his  negligence  and  haste ;  e.  g.l  John 
ii.  22  wants  the  last  words  of  the  verse  tov  Tlarepa  Kai  tov  Ylov: 
in  like  manner,  the  nas,  with  which  verse  23  begins,  is  want- 
ing. Again,  verse  27  wants  the  conclusion,  neveire  ev  avra : 
verse  28  wants  the  beginning,  km  wv  reKvia:  1  John  iv.  16 
wants  the  conclusion,  km  6  Qeos  ev  avra.  From  these  exam- 
ples, we  i)erceive  that  the  copyist's  omission  of  certain  pas- 
sages of  the  text  may  have  been  occasioned,  not  always  by 
the  various  readings  of  codices,  but  also  by  words  of  similar 
sound.  Therefore  he  is  not  a  ^perfectly  safe  witness  in  this 
matter." 

On  the  second  he  says :  — 

"  This  codex  may  be  called  Guelpherhytanus  D.  True,  its 
testimony,  as  far  as  hitherto  known,  is  of  very  little  weight ; 
but  still  it  contains  something  remarkable,  and  deserving  fur- 
ther attention." 

The  reader  may  accept  of  these  as  specimens  taken  al- 
most at  random  from  this  volume,  in  illustration  of  the  light 
which  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  New  Criticisms  "  of  the  learned 
Knittel  on  1  John  v.  7. 

Instead  of  dilating  further  on  this  subject  myself,  I  cannot 
better  sum  up  the  whole,  than  by  placing  before  the  reader 
the  following  luminous  view  of  the  facts  which  have  been 
elicited  and  fully  established  in  the  course  of  this  extended 


OXLEE.  173 

discussion.  The  controversy,  I  should  observe,  leaves  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  unaffected ;  has  tended  to  establish 
the  authenticity  of  the  inspired  writings,  and  to  illustrate  the 
powerful  evidence  by  which  their  genuineness  is  ascertained. 
But  till  the  following  positions  are  fairly  met,  and  satisfacto- 
rily answered,  it  is  unnecessary  to  write  or  read  another  book 
in  support  of  1  .John  v.  7. 

"  There  are  three  ways  of  ascertaining  the  genuineness  of 
any  particular  text  of  the  New  Testament ;  —  from  its  being 
found  in  the  Greek  manuscripts ;  j^reserved  in  the  ancient 
Versions ;  or  cited  and  commented  on  in  the  writings  of  the 
fathers.  The  absence  of  all  this  testimony  in  behalf  of  the 
heavenly  xoitnesses,  your  Lordship  has  been  pleased  to  de- 
nominate the  negative  evidence  against  the  verse ;  whereas  I 
am  prepared  to  maintain,  that  sucii  testimony  is  the  only  pos- 
itive evidence  which  we  can  have  of  any  passage  either  now 
being,  or  ever  having  been,  at  any  time  past,  a  genuine  part 
of  the  New  Testament ;  and  that,  in  proportion  as  this  sort 
of  evidence  either  increases  or  decreases,  the  genuineness  or 
spuriousness  of  the  passage  is  rendered  more  or  less  doubtful. 

"  Thus  much  being  premised,  it  will  be  no  difficult  labor  to 
reverse  the  statement  of  your  Lordship,  and  to  demonstrate 
to  the  impartial  reader,  that  since  the  close  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  the  novelties  of  discoveries  against  the  pas- 
sage have  been  manifold  and  important ;  but  the  novelties 
for  it  worse  than  nothing. 

"  1.  Great  weight  used  to  be  laid  on  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts made  use  of  by  Robert  Stephens  for  his  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament ;  but  of  that  argument  we  now  hear 
less  and  less.  By  the  industry  of  Lelong,  "Wetstein,  Marsh, 
and  Griesbach,  most  of  the  manuscripts  have  been  recog- 
nized ;  and  afford  evidence,  not  for,  but  against  the  disputed 
text,  in  that  tliey  contain  it  not. 


174  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

"2.  During  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  century,  the 
Greek  manuscripts  consulted,  though  they  all  conspired  in 
furnishing  evidence  against  the  verse,  were  but  few  in  num- 
ber ;  whereas,  by  the  indefatigable  industry  of  Dr,  Griesbach 
and  of  other  critics  of  the  last  century,  there  are  now  reck- 
oned up  no  less  than  about  one  hundred  and  fifty,  which  have 
been  inspected  with  a  special  reference  to  the  passage,  and 
are  known  not  to  contain  it ;  whilst,  for  the  verse,  there  is 
still  extant  only  the  same  individual  manuscript  from  which 
Erasmus,  three  hundred  years  ago,  so  reluctantly  interpolated 
his  third  edition  of  the  Greek  Scriptures.  The  Codex  Ra- 
vianus  cannot  be  considered  as  an  exception ;  being  evident- 
ly posterior  to  the  invention  of  printing,  and  even  copied 
from  the  Complutensian  Polyglot. 

"  3.  By  the  labor  of  Mr.  Person  and  other  critics,  the  fact 
has  been  ascertained,  that  in  no  Greek  manuscript,  hitherto 
examined,  are  the  words  iv  rrj  yjj  found  making  a  part  of  the 
eighth,  and  indicating  the  loss  of  the  seventh  verse ;  so  that 
one  chief  argument  formerly  made  use  of  has  been  wholly 
done  away  with. 

"  4.  The  Syriac  Version,  which  in  antiquity  and  authority 
may  well  contend  with  the  Latin,  though  it  made  its  appear- 
ance without  the  foisted  text,  had  been  printed  in  a  manner 
from  one  or  two  manuscripts  only ;  so  that  there  might  still 
have  remained  a  rational  doubt,  whether  at  some  future  time 
the  passage  would  not  be  found  in  some  of  the  Syriac  as  well 
as  of  the  Latin  manuscripts.  But,  within  the  last  century,  a 
multitude  of  Syriac  manuscripts,  in  various  parts  of  Christ- 
endom, have  been  examined,  and  still  found  not  to  contain 
it ;  so  that  the  evidence  arising  from  this  most  ancient  ver- 
sion has  become  much  more  decisive  than  it  was. 

"  5.  In  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  came 
forth,  edited  on  the  authority  of  various  manuscripts,  the  Cop- 


OXLEE.        •  175 

tic  Version  of  the  New  Testament.  This  version,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  learned  editor  himself,  was  made  from  the  Greek 
in  the  beginning  of  tlie  third  century ;  and  since  it  coin- 
cides, as  well  in  the  Sahidic  as  in  the  Memphitic  dialect,  with 
the  existing  state  of  the  Greek  manuscripts,  it  has  contrib- 
uted much  to  the  evidence  against  the  disputed  text,  and  that, 
too,  within  the  last  century ;  Mill  being  about  the  first  of  our 
sacred  critics  who  had  the  opportunity  to  mention  it. 

"  6.  Of  the  erroneous  persuasion  respecting  its  existence 
in  the  Armenian  Version,  even  till  after  the  time  of  Mill,  I 
have  already  taken  notice.  Neither  Person,  nor  Griesbach, 
nor  Marsh  professes  to  have  understood  anything  of  the  Ar- 
menian tongue  themselves ;  but  they  correctly  judged  that 
the  passage  had  been  foisted  into  it  contrary  to  the  authority 
of  its  manuscripts.  In  my  Letters  to  Mr.  Nolan  I  have 
afforded,  what  your  Lordship  will  not  easily  find  elsewhere, 
some  more  certain  information  respecting  the  state  of  the 
Armenian  text ;  and  have  there  demonstrated  its  evidence 
to  be  not  for,  but  wholly  against  the  authority  of  the  verse ; 
and  that  its  appearance  in  the  printed  edition  of  Uscan  was 
an  interpolation  from  the  Latin. 

"■  7.  The  Philoxenian,  or  later  Syriac,  is  another  indepen- 
dent version  ;  and  wholly  distinct  from  the  Simplex.  It  was 
made  at  the  first,  probably,  from  manuscripts  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury ;  and  afterwards  collated  with  others  a  century  or  two 
later.  Since  the  translation  is  highly  literal,  it  has  pre- 
served to  us,  with  the  utmost  certainty,  the  state  of  the  Greek 
text  at  the  time  of  its  being  made.  It  retains,  however,  no 
trace  of  the  heavenly  witnesses;  and,  as  the  wliole  of  this 
version  of  the  New  T<-'stament  was  not  published  till  within 
these  thirty  years,  it  may  well  be  considered  as  novel  evi- 
dence against  the  verse,  and  that  in  the  course  of  the  last 
century. 


176  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.  7. 

"  8.  I  profess  to  have  no  acquaintance  with  the  Slavonic 
Version  myself;  but  to  the  learned  its  history  is  not  un- 
known :  that  it  Avas  made  from  the  Greek  towards  the  close 
of  the  ninth  century ;  and  afterwards  either  amended  or  re- 
translated, in  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth,  by  Alexius,  the 
Metropolitan.  In  this  version  from  the  Greek,  as  well  as  in 
all  others  which  have  the  least  pretensions  to  antiquity,  the 
text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses  is  said  to  be  absent ;  and,  since 
all  the  critical  inquiries  into  the  state  of  the  Slavonic  are  of 
a  very  recent  date,  its  evidence  against  the  passage  must  be 
regarded  as  another  novelty  within  the  period  prescribed. 

"  9.  Before  the  commencement  of  the  preceding  century, 
the  Prologue  to  the  Catholic  Epistles  was  universally  be- 
lieved to  have  had  Jerome  for  its  author.  Neither  Socinus 
nor  any  of  his  immediate  followers  ever  dared  to  question  its 
authenticity ;  and,  though  they  objected  to  the  text  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses,  they  were  constrained  to  acknowledge 
that  at  least  Jerome,  the  ablest  critic  of  the  fourth  century, 
had  publicly  defended  it.  But  since  the  works  of  Jerome 
have  been  moi*e  accurately  and  critically  edited,  that  docu- 
ment has  been  judged  to  be  the  forgery  of  some  sophisticator 
of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century;  and  there  is  scarcely  a  critic 
to  be  found,  since  the  time  of  Mill,  who  has  not  added  his 
voice  to  that  sentence  of  condemnation.  Behold,  then,  with- 
in the  last  hundred  years,  another  novelty  against  the  verse ; 
and  that  of  great  weight  and  importance. 

"  10.  It  is  equally  well  known  to  the  learned,  that,  before 
the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  books  to  Theophi- 
lus,  in  which  the  passage  under  dispute  once  or  twice  appears, 
were  usually  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  whose  title  they  bear 
before  them.  But  since  the  publication  of  the  Benedictine 
edition  of  his  works,  in  which  these  spurious  tracts  are  more 
pointedly  condemned,  and  separated  from  the  genuine,  the 


OXLEE.  177 

authority  of  Athanasius  for  the  verse  has  ceased  to  be  brought 
forward. 

"11.  In  all  the  more  ancient  Latin  tracts  containing  any 
trace  of  it,  including  the  books  to  Theophilus  on  the  Trinity, 
and  the  Liber  adcersus  Varimudum,  tliere  are  circumstances 
attending  its  insertion  which  clearly  indicate  that  the  writers 
themselves  were  wholly  ignorant  of  its  existence  as  a  text  of 
Scripture ;  whilst,  as  I  have  shown  in  my  Letters  to  Mr. 
Nolan,  they  furnish  the  very  best  evidence  against  its  au- 
thenticity, in  that  the  words  are  adduced,  not  as  the  very 
language,  but  only  as  the  demonstrated  sense  of  the  lan- 
guage of  St.  John. 

"12.  The  supposed  citation  of  it  by  Fulgentius  is  an  ar- 
gument on  which,  up  to  this  very  hour,  great  stress  has  been 
laid.  But,  in  my  Letters  to  Mr.  Nolan,  I  have  alleged 
some  strong  reasons  to  prove,*  that  for  its  appearance  in  the 
Responsio  contra  Arriaiios  we  are  probably  indebted,  not  to 
any  knowledge  which  the  learned  father  himself  had  of  the 
text,  but  to  the  dexterity  of  Cochlajus.  I  have  been  in- 
formed of  a  late  edition  of  the  works  of  Fulgentius,  printed 
at  Venice,  in  1742 ;  the  editor  of  which  professes  to  have 
collated  manuscripts,  &c.,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  pro- 
cure a  copy  of  it.  To  that  editor,  then,  the  reader  must  be 
referred  for  more  satisfactory  information  on  the  point  at 
issue ;  and,  if  he  finds  nothing  more  in  its  behalf  than  the 
authority  of  the  editio  princeps  of  Cochla^us,  the  supposed 
testimony  of  Fulgentius  must  take  its  place  beside  that  of 
Jerome,  as  being  equally  bottomed  in  fraud  and  mistake. 

"  Such,  my  Lord,  are  the  novelties  or  discoveries  against 
the  verse  in  the  course  of  the  last  century.  They  are  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  leave  its  advocates  not  so  much  as  one 
firm  prop  on  which  to  rest  their  defence ;  and  have  fairly  re- 
duced them  to  the  dire  necessity  of  fetching  from  the  works 

8*  L 


178  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

of  the  fathers  a  few  coincidences  of  thought  and  expression, 
which  they  would  be  happy  to  palm  on  our  credulity  for  allu- 
•iions  to  the  text.  To  one  already  conversant  in  the  history 
of  this  dispute,  a  minute  detail  of  what  has  been  going  on 
may  seem  tedious  and  void  of  interest;  but  the  extraordinary 
statement  of  your  Lordship,  that  the  cumulative  evidence  of 
modern  date  had  brought  nothiug  important  against  the  verse, 
in  addition  to  the  materials  of  Sandius  and  Simon,  was  not 
otherwise  to  be  refuted  than  by  an  appeal  to  these  facts."  * 

After  the  preceding  sheets  had  been  printed,  and  published 
in  the  work  in  which  they  originally  appeared,  I  received  an- 
other pamphlet  on  the  controversy,  which  bears  strong  evi- 
dence of  proceeding  from  the  pen  of  Crito  Cantabrigiensis, 
though  it  appears  under  another  designation :  "  Eemarks 
upon  Mr.  Evanson's  Preface  •to  his  Translation  of  Knittel's 
New  Criticisms  on  1  John  v.  7.  By  Clemens  Anglicanus. 
Cambridge,  1829." 

The  autlior  of  this  acute  and  well-written  tract  does  not 
enter  into  the  general  discussion  with  Knittel.  This  he 
deemed  unnecessary,  as  every  argument  adduced  by  the 
learned  German  deserving  of  attention  had  been  disposed  of 
before.  His  attention  is  exclusively  directed  to  the  preface, 
the  misstatements  and  inaccuracies  of  which  he  has  detected 
and  exhibited  in  a  manner  that,  I  should  suppose,  will  make 
the  translator  regret  he  ever  attempted  anything  original  on 
a  subject  he  so  imperfectly  understands.  Clemens  Anglica- 
nus, at  the  same  time,  writes  in  the  most  gentlemanly  man- 
ner. With  the  most  perfect  command  of  his  temper  and  his 
pen,  he  analyses  Mr.  Evanson's  reasonings,  and  entirely  de- 
molishes them.  "Without  quoting  a  large  part  of  the  pam- 
phlet, I  could  not  jilace  the  argument  of  it  before  the  reader, 
*  Oxlee's  Two  Letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  pp.  13  - 18. 


CLEMENS  ANGLICANUS.  179 

80  as  to  enable  him  to  appreciate  its  mei'its.  I  must,  there- 
fore, content  myself  with  extracting  the  concluding  para- 
graphs, in  which  he  gives  his  opinion  of  Knittel's  work,  and 
of  part  of  his  translator's  prefjice.  Those  who  wish  to  exam- 
ine the  subject  more  fully,  will  refer  to  the  pamplilet  itself; 
or  to  a  very  able  critique  on  Knittel  and  Clemens  Anglicanus 
in  the  Eclectic  Review  for  the  present  month  (February,  1830). 
"  Mr.  Evanson  has  done  good  service  by  his  translation  of 
the  '  New  Criticisms.'  M.  Knittel,  the  author  of  the  work, 
is  manifestly  a  very  learned  man ;  but  his  ingenuity  —  per- 
haps I  might  say,  his  imagination  —  fairly  overpowers  his 
judgment.  He  finds  scarcely  anything  but  resemblances 
between  objects  which  present  to  the  common  eye  little 
besides  dissimilitude.  The  consequence  is,  that  his  book 
contains  as  weak  arguments,  perhaps,  as  ever  were  advanced 
m  favor  of  the  disputed  text ;  but  tliey  are  frequently  man- 
aged with  uncommon  dexterity.  He  affects,  in  his  discussion, 
the  smartness  of  dialogue,  and  is  somewhat  rhapsodical  in 
his  style  of  writing.  The  best  part  of  his  book  relates  to 
Cyprian.  As  for  his  argument  depending  upon  the  eu  ra 
Tpia  and  Ttt  rpia  ev,  —  which,  from  Griesbach's  notice,  we 
were  previously  aware  that  Knittel  had  employed,  —  it  only 
shows  tliat  the  Greek  fathers  who  used  such  expressions 
were  accustomed  to  express,  in  the  briefest  manner,  the  re- 
ceived doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity Let  me  add,  that 

I  think  it  much  to  be  lamented  that  the  translator  should 
have   retained   the  algebraical   proof  or  illustration  of  the 

doctrine  just  mentioned,  —  which  forms  appendix  (G) 

That  the  '  New  Criticisms '  present  no  very  distinct  view  of 
the  subject  discussed,  may,  I  think,  be  collected  from  Mr. 
Evanson's  preface.  Had  Mr.  Evanson  translated  any  one 
of  the  dissertations  of  Mill,  Bengelius,  Wetstein,  or  Gries- 
bach,  his  preface  could  scarcely  have  contained  so  many  in- 
accuracies. 


180  CONTROVERSY  RESPECTING   1   JOHN  V.   7. 

"  Mr.  Evanson  devotes  several  pages  of  his  preface  to  ob- 
servations ou  the  mode  of  criticism  adopted  by  '  the  Deistical 
Wetstein,  the  Pelagian,  Utilitarian  Semler,  and  their  servile 
imitators';  from  the  tenor  of  which  observations  I  naturally 
conclude  that  he  does  not  aspire  after  the  chai'acter  of  a  dis- 
creet and  temperate  writer. 

"  Mr.  Evanson  apprehends  that  '  the  transition,  from  our 
conclusion  to  that  of  the  Unitarians  is  natural  and  easy.'  — 
'  You^  says  the  learned  writer,  '  reject  one  verse  of  John's 
First  Epistle :  they  reject  the  tirst  fourteen  verses  of  his  Gos- 
pel.' — '  It  is,'  he  adds,  '  but  a  step,  and  we  reject  the  Sacred 
Canon  altogether.'  Now  the  only  method,  as  it  appears  to 
me,  by  which  all  this  can  be  effected,  must  be  by  disregard- 
ing our  present  Greek  manuscripts,  as  ^few  and  suspicious 
witnesses ' ;  and  referring  to  '  the  many  thousand  uncollated 
Greek  manuscripts  which  are  probably  in  existence.'  If  the 
Unitarians  should  manifest  any  disposition  to  take  this  course, 
which  has  been  chosen  by  Mr.  Evanson  himself,  I  trust  that 
he  will  be  able  to  produce  good  reasons  why  they  ought  not 
to  follow  his  example."  * 

I  should  have  stated,  in  the  regular  course  of  the  memoirs, 
the  views  taken  of  the  controverted  passage  by  Mr.  Home, 
in  his  valuable  Introduction  to  the  Scriptures,  —  a  work  no 
less  distinguished  for  the  laborious  diligence  which  it  displays, 
than  for  the  amiable  candor  which  pervades  it.  Of  this  the 
present  controversy  affords  an  illustration.  In  his  earlier 
editions,  the  mind  of  the  author  either  hung  in  doubt,  or  it 
leaned  to  the  side  of  the  authenticity  of  the  passage.  In  his 
sixth  edition,  however,  he  fairly  surrenders  it,  as  no  longer 
defensible.  After  giving,  which  he  had  done  in  all  his  edi- 
tions, an  admirable  statement  of  the  evidence  on  both  sides, 
he  concludes  thus  :  — 

*  Clemeus  Anglicanus's  Remarks,  pp.  44-46. 


HORNE.  181 

"  Upon  a  review  of  all  the  preceding  arguments,  the  dis- 
puted clause  (we  think)  must  be  abandoned  as  spurious :  nor 
can  anything  less  than  the  positive  authority  of  unsuspected 
manuscripts  justify  the  admission  of  so  important  a  passage 
into  the  sacred  canon.  Much  stress,  it  is  true,  has  been  laid 
upon  some  points  in  the  internal  evidence,  and  particularly 
the  supposed  grammatical  arguments  (Nos.  2  and  3),  and  the 
reasons  assigned  for  the  omission  of  this  clause.  But  some 
of  these  reasons  have  been  shown  to  be  destitute  of  the  sup- 
port alleged  in  their  behalf;  and  the  remainder  are  wholly 
hypothetical,  and  unsustained  by  any  satisfactory  evidence. 
'Internal  evidence,'  indeed,  (as  Bishop  Marsh  forcibly  ar- 
gues,) '  may  show  that  a  passage  is  spurious,  though  external 
evidence  is  in  its  favor ;  for  instance,  if  it  contain  allusions  to 
things  which  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  the  reputed  author. 
But  no  interxal  evidencp:  can  prove  a  passage  to 
be  genuine,  when  external  evidence  is  decidedly 
AGAINST  IT.  A  spurious  passage  may  be  fitted  to  the  con- 
text as  well  as  a  genuine  passage.  No  arguments,  thei-efore, 
from  internal  evidence,  however  ingenious  they  may  appear, 
can  outweigh  the  mass  of  external  evidence  which  applies  to 
the  case  in  question.'  "  * 

I  must  not  omit  to  mention,  that  Mr.  Home  was  the  first, 
so  far  as  I  have  observed,  to  bring  before  the  British  public 
the  testimony  of  the  Codex  OUobonianus,  as  containing  the 
disputed  clause.  It  adds,  however,  nothing  to  the  authority 
of  the  passage.  The  following  is  his  account  of  this  manu- 
script, derived  from  Professor  Scholz's  communication  in  the 
"  Biblisch-Kritische  Reise." 

"  The  Codex  Ottobonianus  298,  in  the  Vatican  Library,  is 
the  only  other  manuscript  in  which  the  disputed  clause  is  to 
be  found.     According  to  Dr.  Scliolz  it  is  as  follows :  on  rptis 

*  Home's  Introduction,  Vol.  IV.  p.  -iSb. 


182  CONTEOYEKSY  KESPECTING  1  JOHN  V.  7. 

■  etaiv  01  jxapTvpovvTes  arro  tov  ovpavov,  iraTTjp,  \oyos,  Kai  irvivjia 
ayiov  Kai  oi  rpeis  eis  to  fv  eicri.  Kai  rpeis  eicnv  oi  paprvpovirrts 
OTTO  TT)i  yris,  to  irvtvjxa,  &c.,  «fec.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
this  manuscrijjt  has  ano  tov  ovpavov,  from  heaven,  instead  of  eu 
Tcp  ovpavo),  in  heaven,  and  arro  ttjs  yr\i,from  earth,*  instead  of  tv 
"^V  ytli  on  earth,  which  words  occur  in  the  Codex  Montfortia- 
nus ;  and  the  absence  of  the  article  (as  in  that  manuscript) 
before  the  words  expressive  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
manifestly  indicates  the  Latin  origin  of  the  Codex  Ottoboni- 
anus  ;  which  has  further  been  altered  in  many  places  to  make 
it  agree  with  the  Latin  Vulgate.  And  as  this  manuscript  is 
stated  to  have  been  written  in  the  fifteenth  century,  this  late 
date,  in  addition  to  the  very  doubtful  internal  evidence  which 
it  affords,  renders  its  testimony  of  no  force  whatever."  t 

*  [Home  has  been  led  into  error  by  Scholz.  The  manuscript  reads  ivX 
T^s  y^s,  on  earth,  instead  of  a.no  riis  y^s,  as  appears  by  the  fac-simile  given 
in  the  later  editions  of  Heme's  Introduction.  —  Ed.] 

f  Home's  Introduction,  Vol  IV.  p.  465. 


APPENDIX 


BY   THE   EDITOK. 


The  principal  object  of  the  folio-wing  Appendix  is  to  continue 
the  history  of  the  controversy  respecting  1  John  v.  7,  from  the 
year  1830,  the  date  of  Mr.  Orme's  Memoir,  to  the  present  time.  No- 
tice ■will  also  be  taken  of  some  earlier  publications  on  the  subject. 

The  Monthly  Anthology  and  Boston  Review  for  February, 
J811,  contained  an  article  on  Griesbach's  Greek  Testament,  now 
known  to  have  been  written  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  S.  Buckminster, 
in  which  the  question  was  asked,  "  To  what  is  it  to  be  attributed 
that  even  at  the  present  day  1  John  v.  7  is  quoted  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  even  taken  as  a  text  of  discourses, 
when  it  ought  to  be  known  that  it  has  not  more  authority  in  its 
favor  than  the  famous  reading  of  the  seventh  commandment,  in 
one  of  the  editions  of  King  James's  Bible:  Thou  shall  commit 
adultery?"  (p.  110.)  This  strong  statement,  followed  by  a  re- 
mark placing  Acts  xx.  28  and  1  Tim.  iii.  16  in  the  same  category, 
gave  occasion  to  a  critical  discussion  of  the  various  readings  of 
these  passages  in  the  Panoplist  for  April  and  May,  1811,  the  latter 
of  tlie  two  articles  being  mainly  devoted  to  1  John  v.  7.  The 
writer  in  the  Panoplist,  while  admitting  "great  doubts  "  respect- 
ing this  passage,  urges  the  (quotation  of  the  text  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  presented  by  the  Catholic  bisho|)s  to  Iluneric,  A.  D.  484, 
and  the  use  of  the  article  before  ^v  in  the  last  clause  of  the  eighth 
verse,  as  important  arguments  for  its  genuineness ;  and  observes : 
"  Until  these  [circumstances]  arc  fairly  considered  and  lairly 
explained,  we  cannot  deem  the  spuriousness  of  the  passage  to  be 
scttlfd  beyond  dispute."  (p.  .")3D.)  The  argument  on  tlie  former 
4    point  is  quoted  from  Charles  Butler's  Letters  to  Professor  Maish, 


184  APPENDIX. 

and  on  the  latter  from  Middleton's  work  on  the  Greek  Article. 
In  the  Anthology  for  June,  1811,  Mr.  Buckminster  replied,  re- 
marking that  there  was  "  not  a  single  argument  in  Mr.  Butler's 
letter,  which  had  not  been  already  brought  forward  by  Travis,  and 
considered  by  Poi-son  and  Griesbach " ;  and  propounding  four 
questions,  which  he  says  the  advocates  of  the  verse  must  answer, 
befoi'e  this  African  Confession  can  be  offered  as  good  authority 
for  the  existence  of  the  verse  in  Latin  copies  at  the  end  of  the 
fifth  century.  The  argument  that  the  use  of  the  article  before 
fv  implies  the  existence  of  a  previous  ev,  to  be  found  only  in  ver. 
7,  he  meets  by  rcferring  to  the  use  of  to  ev  in  Phil.  ii.  2.  The 
Panoplist  for  August,  1811,  contains  a  rejoinder;  but  there  is  no 
reply  to  the  four  questions,  nor  any  notice  of  the  passage  adduced 
in  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  article  before  ev. 

In  the  year  1820  the  Rev.  Henry  "Ware,  Jr.,  pubUshed  "  Two 
Lettei-s  to  the  Rev.  Alexander  McLeod,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  the  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church,  containing  Remarks  upon  the  Texts 
from  which  he  preached  on  the  Evenings  of  April  30,  and  May 
7."  New  York,  1820,  Bvo.  pp.  24.  The  text  of  Dr.  McLeod's 
first  discourse  was  1  John  v.  7,  which  was  assumed  to  be  genuine. 
Mr.  Ware  protests  against  this  assumption,  and  quotes  in  oppo- 
sition the  concessions  of  a  number  of  eminent  Trinitarian  writers, 
who  had  expressed  in  the  strongest  terms  their  conviction  of  its 
spuriousness.  Among  these  quotations,  the  following  extract  from 
a  Latin  letter  of  Bishop  Lowth  to  Michaelis,  first  published  in 
Michaelis's  Literarischer  Briefwechsel,  or  "  Literary  Correspond- 
ence," Vol.  II.  p.  428,  may  deserve  to  be  repeated  here,  as  the 
work  from  which  it  was  taken  is  probably  accessible  to  few  Eng- 
lish readers.  "  We  have,"  says  the  Bishop,  "  some  wranglers  in 
theology,  sworn  to  follow  their  master,  who  are  prepared  to  defend 
anything,  however  absurd,  should  there  be  occasion.  But  I  be- 
lieve there  Is  no  one  among  us  in  the  least  degree  conversant  with 
sacred  criticism,  and  having  the  use  of  his  understanding,  who 
would  be  Avilling  to  contend  for  the  genuineness  of  the  verse,  1 
John  V.  7."*     In  1823  a  third  edition  of  Mr.  Ware's  tract  was 

*  "  Habemus  in  theologia  rabulas  quosdam  in  magistri  alicujus  A'erba 
juratos  ;  nihil  est  tarn  absurdum  quod  illi,  si  res  et  occasio  ferat,  noa 


BRITISH  CRITIC.  —  KICKLI.  185 

published  in  Boston,  with  additions;  and  it  is  reprinted  in  his 
Works,  Vol.  II.  pp.  303-330,  Boston,  1846,  12mo. 

The  British  Critic,  Quarterly  Theological  Review  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Record  for  July,  1828,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  1-32,  in  a  review  of 
the  Vindication  of  Porson  by  Crito  Cantabrigiensis,  contains  a  full 
and  able  discussion  of  the  genuineness  of  the  disputed  text. 
Speaking  of  Bishop  Burgess,  the  reviewer  says :  —  "In  the  various 
publications  enumerated  above,  he  has  brought  forward,  indeed, 
almost  every  argument,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  that  has  ever 
suggested  itself  to  any  of  the  defenders  of  the  verse,  and  has 
most  entirely  failed  of  producing  the  desired  effect.  The  causes 
of  this  bad  success  are  not  to  be  looked  for  in  the  want  of  zeal 
and  talents  in  the  advocate,  but  in  the  utter  hopelessness  of  the 
cause  which  he  has  attempted  to  maintain."  (pp.  2,  3.)  The 
British  Critic  was  at  this  time  the  leading  organ  of  the  High 
Church  party  in  England. 

In  1828  Karl  Rickli  published  a  commentary,  in  German,  on 
the  First  Epistle  of  John,  with  the  following  title  : —  "  The  First 
Epistle  of  John,  explained  and  applied  in  Sermons  delivered 
before  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Church  at  Lucerne,  with  an 
Historical  Preface,  and  an  Exegetical  Appendix."  *  He  rejects 
1  John  V.  7  without  hesitation  as  spurious,  and  gives  in  his  Appen- 
dix (pp.  29  -  4-1)  an  int(?resting  account  of  its  introduction  into 
the  A'arious  modern  translations  of  the  New  Testament.  He 
states  that  the  verse  was  regarded  as  supposititious  by  Luther, 
Zwingli,  fficolampadius,  Bullinger,  and  Bugenhagen  ;  that  it  did 
not  appear  in  Luther's  version  till  1593,  (not  1574  as  erroneously 
stated  by  Panzer  and  others,)  when  it  was  inserted  in  the  edition 
printed  at  Frankfort,  from  which  the  corruption  rapidly  spread, 
and  after  1G20  became  universal.     This  interjjolation  of  Luther's 

parati  sint  defendere.  Sed  neminem  credo  jam  apud  nos  esse,  in  critica 
sacra  paulum  modo  versatum,  et  cui  saiium  sit  sinciput,  qui  pro  sinceri- 
tate  conimatis  7ini  1  Joh:  v.  propugnare  velit."  —  See  Christian  Disciple 
for  March,  1810;  New  Series,  I.  109. 

*  "  Johannis  erster  Brief,  erkliirt  und  angewendet  in  Predigten,  .  .  .  mit 
historischem  Vorbericht,  und  exegetischem  Anhange."  ....  Luzern, 
1828,  8vo.  pp.  xxxiv.,  399,  48. 


18G  APPENDIX. 

version  was  in  direct  opposition  to  his  solemn  charge,  in  the 
Preface  to  the  edition  published  in  the  year  of  his  death  (1546), 
that  no  alteration  shoidd  be  made  in  his  work.  The  first  edition 
of  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was  published  in  1522. 
•</  In  1831  another  volume  appeared  from  the  pen  of  the  indefati- 
gable Bishop  Burgess,  entitled  "  Remarks  on  the  Gener£d  Tenour 
of  the  New  Testament  regarding  the  Nature  and  Dignity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  addressed  to  Mi-s.  Joanna  Baillie,"  in  which,  of  course,  the 
genuineness  of  1  John  v.  7  was  defended;  and  in  1835  he  pub- 
lished at  Salisbury  the  following  work :  "  An  Introduction  to 
the  Controversy  on  the  Disputed  Verse  of  St.  John,  as  revived 
by  Mr.  Gibbon :  to  which  is  added  Christian  Theocracy :  a 
Second  Letter  to  Mrs.  Joanna  Baillie."  The  Introduction  was 
first  privately  printed  in  1833.  It  throws  no  new  light  on  the 
subject. 

y  In  1835  Cardinal  "Wiseman  pubhshed  at  Rome  "Two  Letters 
on  some  Parts  of  the  Controversy  concerning  the  Genuineness  of 
1  John  V.  7  :  containing  also  an  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  of  the  first 
Latin  Version  of  Scripture,  commonly  called  '  the  Itala.'  "  These 
Letters  fii-st  appeared  in  the  Catholic  Magazine  for  1832  and 
1833,  Vols.  II.  and  III.  The  Roman  edition  contains  some  ad- 
ditions. They  ai-e  reprinted,  with  a  few  verbal  changes,  in  Vol. 
I.  of  Wiseman's  Essays  on  Various  Subjects,  London,  1853 ;  and 
this  is  the  edition  from  which  I  shall  quote. 

In  these  Letters  the  Cardinal  maintains  that  the  first  Latin 
version  of  the  Greek  Testament  originated  in  the  Roman  prov- 
ince of  North  Afi-ica ;  that  the  so-called  interpretatio  Itala,  which 
Augustine  preferred  for  its  closeness  and  perspicuity,  was  a  revis- 
ion or  recension  of  this  primary  Latin  version,  and  consequently 
inferior  in  critical  authority.  He  further  maintains  that,  though 
the  disputed  passage  was  wanting  in  the  manuscripts  used  in  Italy, 
and  does  not  appear  in  the  writings  of  the  Italian  fathers,  it 
belonged  to  the  original  Latin  version,  made  in  Africa ;  whence 
"  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  the  manuscripts  used  in  making  this 
version  possessed  the  vei-se;  and  these  were  necessarily  manu- 
scripts of  far  greater  antiquity  than  any  we  can  now  inspect."  * 

*  Wiseman's  Essays,  I.  66. 


\jriSEMAN.  187 

That  the  passage  in  question  belonged  originally  to  the  Old 
Latin  version,  Dr.  Wiseman  infers  from  its  being  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to  by  the  African  fathers,  Tcrtullian,  Cyprian,  Marcus 
Celedensis,  Victor  Vitensis,  the  four  hundred  bishops  assembled 
under  Huneric  at  Carthage,  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  and  Fulgcntius. 
A  new  argument  in  favor  of  this  thesis  is  based  on  an  anonymous 
>/  work  called  the  Speculum,  or  "  Mirror,"  ibund  in  a  manuscript 
assigned  by  Wiseman  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  belonging 
to  the  library  of  Santa  Croce  in  Gerusalemme  in  Rome.  This 
work  consists  wholly  of  quotations  from  Scripture,  arranged 
under  one  hundred  and  forty-four  heads,  embracing  the  chief 
points  of  Christian  belief  and  practice.  The  text  is  that  of  the 
Old  Latin  version,  and  generally  agrees  with  the  quotations  of 
the  African  fathers.  It  has  been  published  by  Cardinal  Mai  in 
his  Nova  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  Tom.  L  Pars  II.,  Rome,  1852,  4to. 
No  title  is  given  to  the  manuscript  by  the  original  transcriber,  but 
several  different  and  later  hands  have  prefixed  inscriptions  erro- 
neously identifying  it  with  a  treatise  of  Augustine's  against  the 
Donatists,  which  Possidius,  in  his  list  of  that  father's  works, 
entitles  De  Testimon'ds  Scripturarmn  contra  Donatistas  et  Idola. 
One  of  the  four  titles,  however,  thus  prefixed  to  the  work,  reads 
simply  Libri  de  Speculo.  We  know  that  Augustine  made  a  col- 
lection of  practical  extracts  from  Scripture  which  bore  the  name 
of  Speculum,  serving  the  reader  as  a  "  mirror  "  of  character;  and 
Wiseman  and  Mai  argue  that  the  present  compilation  is  no  other 
than  that  work.  To  discuss  the  question  fully,  and  to  consider 
the  comparative  claims  of  the  two  other  Specula  which  have  been 
attributed  by  different  editors  to  x\ugustine,  would  occupy  too 
much  space.  I  would  only  observe  that  compilations  of  this  kind 
were  peculiarly  liable  to  alteration  and  interpolation  by  transcrib- 
ers,* and  that  there  arc  strong  presumptions  against  the  supposi- 

*  For  an  illustration  of  this  fact  wc  need  go  no  further  than  the  work 
which  forms  a  part  of  the  same  manuscript  which  contains  the  Speculum, 
namely,  Cyprian's  Testimonia  adcersus  Jtulwos.  The  Benedictine  editors 
complain  that  the  manuscripts  of  this  work  vary  so  much,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine  what  part  of  it  is  Cyprian's.  —  Cypriani  Opera, 
Paris,  1726,  fol.,  p.  596. 


188  APPENDIX. 

tion  that  Augustine  was  the  author  of  the  present  work  in  Its  pres- 
ent form.  The  Speculum  of  Augustine,  as  his  biographer  Possidius 
informs  us,  was  accompanied  by  a  Preface ;  this  has  none :  Augus- 
tine in  his  quotations  from  the  Okl  Latin  version  used  the  Italian 
text ;  in  this  the  African  recension  is  followed  :  Augustine  has  not 
only  never  quoted  1  John  v.  7  in  his  voluminous  writings,  but  his 
comments  on  the  verse  following  show  that  he  cannot  have  been 
acquainted  with  it ;  in  this  Speculum  it  is  quoted  twice.* 

Dr.  Tregelles  well  remarks,  that  "  even  if  all  Wiseman's  pri- 
mary positions  were  good,  they  would  only  show  that  some  Latin 
copies  had  the  passage  very  early.  An  addition  in  some  one 
version  is  of  Itself  ?!0  authority  for  the  adoption  of  the  passage  as 
genuine."  f  But  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Wiseman  rests  on  assump- 
tions altogether  false.  The  pretended  unanimity  of  the  African 
fathers  in  support  of  the  vei-se  is  purely  Imaginary.  The  sup- 
posed allusion  to  1  John  v.  7  In  TertuUian,  the  earliest  Latin 
father,  really  "furnishes,"  as  Bishop  Kaye  has  observed,  "most 
decisive  proof  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  verse  " ;  X  the  sup- 
posed quotation  from  Cyprian  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose,  and 
other  portions  of  his  wi-Itlngs  raise  a  very  strong  presumption 
against  his  acquaintance  with  the  disputed  text ;  §  the  passage 
adduced  from  Marcus  Celedensis  contains  no  quotation,  and  af- 
fords no  ground  for  the  supposition  that  he  knew  the  text  of  the 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses ;  a  later  African  father,  Facundus, 
was  clearly  ignorant  of  It,  and  derives  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
from  a  mystical  Interpretation  of  the  eighth  verse,  as  Augustine 
had  done  before  him.     The  earliest  quotation  of  the  text  Is  to  be 

*  Once  in  connection  with  the  eighth  verse,  which  precedes  the  seventh, 
as  follows:  —  "  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dicunt  in  terra,  spiritus, 
aqua,  et  sanguis;  et  hii  tres  unum  sunt  in  Christo  Jesu.  Et  tres  sunt  qui 
testimonium  dicunt  in  caelo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus;  et  hii  tres  unum 
sunt."     (Cap.  2;  see  also  c.  3.) 

t  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  in  Home's  Introduction, 
10th  edition,  IV.  363,  364. 

J  Ecclesiastical  History,  etc.,  illustrated  from  the  Writings  of  TertuUian, 
3d  edition,  p.  515. 

§  On  this  point  see  Criio  CanlabrigiensU,  Vindication  of  Person,  pp. 
381-385. 


WISEMAN.  189 

found  in  the  writings  of  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fifth  century  ;  and  from  that  time  it  appears  with  such  a  variety  of 
readings  as  to  suggest  at  once  its  character  as  an  interpolation, 
derived  from  a  marginal  gloss.  Its  occurrence  in  the  Speculum 
proves  only  that  it  existed  in  some  Latin  manuscripts  as  early  as 
the  seventh  century. 

Dr.  Wiseman  further  gives  an  account  of  a  manuscript  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate  preserved  in  the  Benedictine  monastery  of  La  Cava, 
which  contains  the  text  of  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  but 
with  some  peculiar  readings.  Cardinal  Mai  regards  it  as  belong- 
ing to  the  seventh  century  at  latest ;  Tischendorf  assigns  it  to  the 
eighth. 

The  Cardinal  finally  entertains  us  with  some  reports  of  Greek 
manuscripts  containing  the  passage.  He  states  that  in  the  An- 
gelica Library  at  Rome  is  preserved  the  copy  of  the  Bible  used 
by  Angelo  Rocca,  the  secretary  of  the  Congregation  appointed  by 
Clement  VII.  for  the  correction  of  the  Vulgate.  Upon  the  text 
of  St.  John  in  this  volume  is  the  following  marginal  note:  — 
"  HsEC  verba  sunt  certissime  de  textu  et  allegantur  contra  haere- 
ticos  ab  Athanasio,  Gregorio  Nazianzeno,  Cyrillo  et  Cypriano ;  et 
Hieronymus  in  prologo  dicit  ab  infidelibus  scrlptoribus  fuisse 
praetermissa.  In  Gra>eo  etiara  quodam  antiquissimo  exemplari 
quod  habetur  Venetiis  leguntur;  unde  coUigitur  Graeca,  quae 
passim  feruntur,  in  hac  parte  esse  mendosa,  et  omnia  Latina 
manuscripta  in  quibus  non  habentur  ilia  verba  signata."  *  That 
is,  "  These  words  certainly  belong  to  the  text,  and  are  alleged 
against  the  heretics  by  Athanasius,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Cyril,  and 
Cyprian ;  and  Jerome  in  his  Prologue  says  they  were  omitted  by 
unfaithful  transcribers.  They  are  also  read  in  a  very  ancient 
Greek  copy  preserved  at  Venice ;  whence  it  is  inferred  that  the 
ordinary  Greek  copies  are  faulty  in  this  place,  and  likewise  all 
the  Latin  manuscripts  in  which  the  marked  words  are  not  con- 
tained." 

On  this  statement  it  may  be  sufficient  to  quote  the  remarks  of 
Dr.  William  Wright,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  translation  of  Seller's 
Biblical  Hermeneutics,  pp.  635,  636:  —  "But  we  know  that  it 

♦  Wiseman's  Essays,  I.  68. 


190  APPENDIX. 

was  not  quoted  by  Athanasius,  nor  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  nor  by 
Cyril ;  and  that  Jerome  did  not  write  the  Prologue,  ■which  was 
forged  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  that  father  was  dead. 
The  Greek  copy  at  Venice  has  also  long  since  shrunk  from  in- 
spection." 

Tn  regard  to  this  Greek  copy  at  Venice  I  would  venture  the 
conjecture  that  it  is  the  manuscript  belonging  to  the  Library  of 
St.  Mark,  described  by  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  Travels  in  a  passage 
already  quoted  in  this  volume  (pp.  14,  15).  This  manuscript 
contains  the  Acts  and  Epistles  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Ai-abic.  It 
is  numbered  96  in  Scholz's  list  of  manuscripts  of  the  Acts  and 
Catholic  Epistles,  and  is  assigned  by  him  to  the  eleventh  century. 
The  text  of  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses  is  found  in  it,  but 
unfortunately  only  in  the  Latin  portion,  which  is  taken  from  the 
Vulgate.* 

Dr.  Wiseman  next  adduces  the  oral  testimony  of  a  gentleman, 
Don  Leopoldo  Sebastiani,  who  had  travelled  over  a  great  part  of 
Greece  expressly  with  the  view  of  collating  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament  for  a  Latin  vei-sion  of  it,  which  he  afterwards 
published.  "  His  statement  is,  that  he  has  seen  several  manu- 
scripts with  the  verse  erased,  and  two  in  which  it  is  wiitten 
prima  ynanu,  in  the  margin.  One  was  at  Nicosia  in  Cyprus,  in 
possession  of  a  Greek  of  abilities,  a  merchant  as  I  understood 
him.  It  was  in  uncial  letters,  large ;  on  the  margin,  by  the  same 
hand,  although  in  smaller  characters,  was  the  verse,  with  an  anno- 
tation that  it  belonged  to  the  text."  f 

The  hope  expressed  by  Dr.  Wiseman  that  "  some  traveller  may 
be  able  to  verify  this  testimony  "  has  not  yet  been  realized. 

These  Letters  of  Cardinal  Wiseman  are  a  valuable  contribution 
to  the  history  of'  the  Old  Latin  vei-sion ;  but  scholars  generally, 
I  think,  will  acquiesce  in  the  judgment  of  the  North  British  Re- 
view, that,  in  respect  to  1  John  v.  7,  "  his  vindication  is  merely  a 
piece  of  feeble  ingenuity,  —  designed  at  the  same  time  to  uphold 
the  authority  of  the  Latin  or  Romish  Church."  f     It  is  worthy  of 

*  See  Rinck's  Lucubratio  Critica,  pp.  30,  41,  109. 

t  Wiseman's  Essays,  I.  68,  69. 

t  North  British  Review,  Aug.  1853;  XIX.  435. 


MAI.  —  HUYSHE.  —  WRIGHT.  191 

note  that  the  prudent  Cardinal,  though  presenting  certain  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  disputed  text,  "  as  materials  for  scholars  to 
consider,"  noAvhere  expresses  a  positive  belief  in  its  genuineness. 
He  professes  to  treat  only  of  "  some  parts  of  the  controversy." 

It  should  be  here  mentioned,  perliaps,  that  Cardinal  Angelo 
Mai,  in  his  note  on  the  passage  of  the  Speculum  before  referred  to, 
contends  for  the  genuineness  of  1  John  v.  7,  —  it  being  sanctioned, 
in  his  view,  by  "  a  solemn  decree  "  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  —  and 
says,  pathetically,  "I  am  deeply  grieved  that  some  celebrated 
editors  of  the  present  age  have  not  hesitated  to  omit  this  verse, 
and  have  thus  thrown  aAvay  an  excellent  weapon  against  the 
Socinians  and  Antichristians."  *  There  is  no  argument  in  the 
note  tliat  calls  for  remark,  except  perhaps  the  extraordinary 
blunder  of  referring  to  Wetsteln's  Greek  Testament  as  an  author- 
ity in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  Cardinal  Mai  has 
rendered  great  service  to  literature  by  the  publication  of  manu- 
scripts which  might  otherwise  have  long  remained  entombed  in 
the  Vatican ;  his  Industry  was  Indefatigable ;  but  he  has  a  poor 
reputation  among  scholars  for  critical  acumen  and  accuracy. 

In  1833-35  tlic  Rev.  Francis  Iluyshe,  who  has  been  already 
introduced  to  us  by  Mr.  Orme,  published  a  long  series  of  articles 
in  the  British  Magazine,  Vols.  III. -VII.,  entitled  "A  Vindica- 
tion of  the  Early  Parisian  Greek  Press,"  which  have  a  bearing  on 
the  evidence  for  1  John  v.  7,  the  writer  maintaining  that  the  pas- 
sage must  have  been  contained  in  one  or  more  of  the  manuscripts 
used  by  Robert  Stcpliens  (Estlenne)  for  his  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament  printed  in  154G,  1549,  and  1550.  Mr.  Huyshe  also 
published  in  the  same  magazine.  Vol.  V.  pp.  702-  707,  a  notice  of 
Dr.  Wiseman's  Letters  on  1  John  v.  7.  His  baseless  hypotheses 
were  demolished  by  the  Rev.  John  Oxlee  in  three  articles  printed 
in  the  British  Magazine,  1835,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  GO-63,  298-302, 
and  544-549. 

The  Rev.  William  Wright,  LL.  D.,  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
published  In  1835  a  translation  of  Seller's  Bibhcal  Hermeneutics, 
with  additional  notes.  He  treats  of  the  disputed  passage  In  an 
Appendix  to  the  volume,  pp.  613-652,  which  Is  valuable  for  its 

*  Mai's  Nova  Bibl.  ratrum,  Tom.  I.  Pars  II.  p.  7. 


192  APPENDIX. 

full  account  of  the  readings  of  the  Latin  manuscripts,  and  its 
refutation  of  some  of  Wiseman's  arguments.  In  regard  to  the 
Speculum  lie  observes :  — 

"  Dr.  Wiseman  is  further  of  opinion,  that,  under  any  circum- 
stances, whoever  might  have  been  the  author  of  this  anonymous 
"work,  the  use  of  the  old  version  will  not  allow  us  to  assign  it  to  a 
much  later  age  than  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

"  But  Pope  Leo  the  Great  made  use  of  the  old  vei^ion  in  the 
fifth  century,  and  even  of  an  impure  copy  ;  and  Gregoiy  the  Great, 
in  the  sixth  century,  says  that  he  used  at  one  time  the  old,  at  an- 
other the  new  version,  just  as  the  one  or  the  other  hajipened  to  be 
better  adapted  to  demonstration,  since  the  apostolical  chair,  which 
he  filled,  recognized  both.  — Letter  to  Leander,  Bishop  of  Seville."  * 

In  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review  (New  York)  for  March, 
1835,  Vol.  II.  pp.  141  - 148,  there  is  an  article  on  the  "  Authen- 
y  ticity  of  1  John  v.  7,  8,"  by  the  Rev.  William  W.  Hunt,  of  Am- 
herst, Mass.,  in  which  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  is  maintained. 
The  essay  is  not  creditable  to  the  learning  or  ability  of  the 
author.  His  acquaintance  with  the  subject  may  be  judged  of  by 
the  assertions  that  the  words  iv  rfj  yfj  in  the  eighth  verse  are 
"  generally  allowed  to  be  genuine,"  and  "  found  in  some  early 
Greek  manuscripts  " ;  and  that  "  there  is  not  a  little  evidence  that 
the  passage  is  quoted  or  referred  to  by  distinguished  Greek  writ- 
ers of  the  third  or  fourth  century,  and  it  is  found  in  all  the  printed 
editions  of  the  Greek  Testament ! "  (pp.  143,  145,  146.)  The 
following  is  mentioned  among  the  considerations  which  should 
incline  us  to  receive  the  disputed  text:  —  "The  Bible  is  the 
revelation  of  God,  and  the  only  one  which  he  has  given  to  men. 
...  It  is  immensely  important  that  this  book,  as  a  whole,  have  all 
the  weight  of  Divine  authority.  Now  what  is  the  influence  upon 
the  community  of  rejecting  a  part  of  it,  —  of  calling  a  verse,  here 
and  there,  spurious  ?  Other  verses  are  soon  suspected,  especially 
if  they  reveal  an  unpleasant  doctrine,  or  inculcate  an  unpleasant 
duty.  The  public  confidence  is  shaken,  and  infidehty  is  en- 
couraged."    (p.  147.) 

In  1836  Dr.  J.  M.  A.  Scholz,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 

*  Seilar's  Biblical  Hermeneutics,  p.  634. 


SCHOLZ.  —  FARLEY.  193 

University  of  Bonn,  published  at  Leipsic  the  second  volume  of 
his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  for  which  he  had  examined, 
more  or  less,  several  hundreds  of  manuscripts  which  had  never 
before  been  used  for  ci-itieal  purposes.  Though  a  Catholic,  and 
though,  as  Archbishop  Kenrick  remarks  in  the  note  on  1  John  v.  7 
in  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  the  genuineness  of 
this  verse  is  generally  maintained  by  Catholics,  "  being  read  in 
the  Vulgate,  which,  in  aU  its  parts,  was  sanctioned  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,"  Scholz  rejects  the  disputed  passage  as  spurious,  as  he 
had  before  done  in  his  German  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
published  in  18.30.  This  gave  occasion  to  "  Three  Letters  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Scholz  ...  on  the  Contents  of  his  Note  on  1  John  v.  7. 
By  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury."  Southampton,  1837,  8vo.  In 
these  Letters,  which  were  privately  printed.  Bishop  Burgess,  as  we 
are  told  by  his  biographer,  "  pointed  out  some  remarkable  contra- 
dictions between  certain  passages  in  the  Prolegomena  to  that 
work  [Scholz's  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament]  and  the  state- 
ments of  his  note  on  1  John  v.  7,  respecting  the  age  and  date  of 
the  Greek  MSS.  containing  the  disputed  verse."  We  are  further 
informed  that  Dr.  Scholz  "  acknowledged,  in  very  respectful  terms, 
the  receipt  of  the  letters;  he  observed  that  the  MS.  [MSS.]  in 
question  [the  Codex  Oitohonianus  298,  and  a  Neapolitan  manu- 
script which  has  the  verse  in  the  margin  in  a  handwriting  of  the 
sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century]  added  something  to  the  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  the  authenticity  of  the  verse,  but  maintained  that 
they  were  of  very  little  weight  when  compared  in  authority  and 
antiquity  with  the  multitude  omitting  it."  * 

In  1845  the  Rev.  Frederick  A.  Farley  published  a  tract  enti- 
tled "  Grounds  for  rejecting  the  Text  of  the  Three  Heavenly 
Witnesses ;  I.  John,  v.  7.  With  Concessions  of  Trinitarians  upon 
the  Same."  Boston,  April,  1845,  12mo.  pp.  24,  This  was  printed 
for  the  American  Unitarian  Association  as  No.  213  of  the  First 
Series  of  its  "  Tracts."  The  author  acknowledges  his  great 
indebtedness  for  his  materials  to  IMi\  John  Wilson's  "  Concessions 
of  Trinitarians,"  Manchester,  Eng.,  1842,  8vo;  a  remarkable 
work,  to  which  I  would  also  refer  the  curious  reader  for  some 

*  Harford's  Life  of  Bishop  Bnrges?,  p.  477. 

9  M 


194  APPENDIX. 

Trinitarian  authorities  for  rejecting  the  disputed  passage,  which 
it  does  not  seem  worth  while  to  mention  here. 
\'  In  1858  Dr.  Joseph  Turnbull  published  in  London  "  The 
Seven  Epistles  of  James,  Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  and  the 
Revelation.  Translated  from  the  Original  Greek,  with  Critical 
Notes,  and  a  Dissertation  on  1  John  v.  7,  8."  This  dissertation, 
which  maintains  the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  was  reviewed  by 
Dr.  S.  P.  Tregelles  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  and 
Biblical  Record  for  Ajiril,  1858,  pp.  167-178.  He  remarks:  — 
"  Dr.  Turnbull's  dissertation  has  one  merit,  —  brevity,  —  for  it  is 
rather  less  than  ten  pages ;  but  in  these  ten  pages  there  is  hardly 
a  statement  that  is  worthy  of  implicit  confidence.  This  may 
sound  like  a  harsh  judgment,  but  I  will  give  proofs."  (p.  168.) 
The  proofs  given  are  ample.  There  is  nothing  new  in  Dr. 
Turnbull's  dissertation  but  mistakes,  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
of  which  is  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  passage 
founded  on  its  supposed  existence  in  a  Wolfenbiittel  manuscript 
assigned  by  Griesbach  to  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century.  Dr. 
Turnbull  has  confounded  the  Codex  Guelpherhytanus  XVL  7, 
(No.  G9  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,)  to  which  Griesbach 
assigns  the  date  above  mentioned,  and  which  omits  the  disputed 
text,  (though  it  has  been  added  in  the  margin  by  a  very  recent 
hand,)  with  the  Codex  Guelpherhytanus  D,  described  by  Knittel, 
wliich  contains  it,  but  also  contains  in  the  same  handwriting  the 
Latin  versions  of  Vatable,  Castalio,  and  Beza,  showing  that  it 
was  not  wi'itten  before  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century.* 
This  blunder  is  accompanied  with  censure  of  Griesbach  for  sup- 
posed inconsistency  in  his  account  of  the  manuscript ;  on  which 
Tregelles  quaintly  remarks  :  — 

"  Griesbach  was  certainly  right  in  each  thing  that  he  said ;  but 
if  an  extract  from  a  catalogue  at  the  beginning  of  a  volume  may 
be  made  the  nominative  case  to  a  verb  at  the  end  of  the  book, 
then  will  no  author  be  safe." 

In  respect  to  another  point  Tregelles  observes  :  — "  Dr.  Turn- 
bull  next  seeks,  by  mere  assertion  and  by  a  reference  to  an  in- 

*  See  Griesbach's  Diatribe  on  1  John  v.  7,  p.  7 ;  Knittel's  Neue  Kritiken, 
or  "  New  Criticisms,"  pp.  124,  127. 


TURNBULL.  —  BOSTON  REVIEW.  195 

correct  statement  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  to  claim  a  high  place  for 
the  Codex  Montfortianns  at  Dublin.  I  have  recently  discussed 
this  manuscript  (see  Home's  Introd.  IV.  213-217),  and  therefore 
I  shall  now  only  repeat  that  it  contains  the  Latin  chapters ;  that  in 
other  parts  of  the  chapter  1  John  v.  it  shows  that  its  accordance 
with  Latin  copies  is  peculiar ;  that  the  Gospels  could  not  be  older 
than  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century ;  the  Epistles  and 
Acts  were  afterwards  added  (sometime  between  the  year  1500 
and  the  middle  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth) ;  and  that  last  of  all 
the  Apocalypse  was  appended  in  the  reign  of  that  queen."  * 
•/  The  Boston  Review  for  May,  1864,  Vol.  IV.  pp.  258-273, 
contains  an  article  on  "  The  Greek  Text  in  Acts,  xx.  28 ;  1 
Timothy,  iii.  16;  and  1  John,  v.  7,  8,"  defending  the  reading  of 
the  Received  Text  in  each  of  these  passages.  The  writer  is  so  inac- 
curate as  to  represent,  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  essay,  the  words 
"  in  earth,"  in  1  John  v.  8,  as  undisputed  ;  though  they  are  omitted 
in  all  the  known  Greek  manuscripts  written  before  the  invention 
of  printing,  and  are  rejected  as  sjjurious  by  all  the  scholars  who 
reject  the  rest  of  the  passage  in  question.  His  account  of  the 
various  readings  of  Acts  xx.  28,  and  of  the  evidence  for  them,  is 
also  grossly  inaccurate.  Indeed,  the  article  is  full  of  misstate- 
ments, and  appears  to  have  been  written  by  some  one  wholly 
ignorant  of  the  Uterature  of  the  last  thirty  years.  The  arguments 
adduced  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  1  John  v.  7  are  founded 
on  the  incorrect  assertions  and  utterly  exploded  hypotheses  of 
such  writers  as  Nolan  and  Hales.  The  absence  of  the  passage 
from  all  existing  Greek  manuscripts  of  any  authority  and  from 
the  ancient  versions  is  explained  by  a  reference  to  the  order  given 
to  Eusebius  by  the  Emperor  Constantino,  to  have  fifty  copies  of 
the  Scriptures  carefully  transcribed  for  the  use  of  the  new 
churches  in  Constantinople.f  Eusebius  is  supposed,  on  account 
of  his  "  Arian  proclivities,"  and  "  for  a  sinister  purpose,"  to  have 
omitted  1  John  v.  7  from  these  copies.  To  complete  the  solution 
of  the  problem,  we  have  only  further  to  suppose  that,  though  this 
remarkable  text  was  before  contained  in  all  the  Greek  copies  of 

•  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  April,  1858,  pp.  171,  172. 
t  See  Eusebius's  Life  of  Constantine,  IV.  36- 


196  APPENDIX. 

the  Epistle  possessed  by 'Christians  in  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Pales- 
tine, Egypt,  Greece,  Italy,  Gaul,  and  other  parts  of  the  -world,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  early  versions,  it  was  eliminated  from  all  the 
manuscripts  in  the  hands  of  the  orthodox  as  well  as  of  the 
Arians,  icithout  discovery,  in  an  age  of  heated  controversy  on  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity.  The  corrupted  cojoies  were  palmed  off 
upon  Athanasius  and  his  followers,  and  the  ancient  versions  made 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries  in  Syria  and  Egypt  were 
mutilated  to  correspond  to  them,  so  that  no  trace  of  the  passage 
has  been  found  in  any  manuscript  copy  of  those  versions,  or  in  any 
Greek  manuscript  written  before  the  invention  of  printing,  or  in 
the  writings  of  any  Greek  father  before  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  Nobody  ever  missed  it ;  and  the  fraud  of  Euse- 
bius  was  first  detected,  some  fifteen  hundred  years  after  its 
perpetration,  by  the  sagacity  of  the  Rev.  Frederick  Nolan  ! 

After  this  satisfactory  removal  of  the  difficulty  about  the  Greek 
manuscripts  and  the  ancient  versions,  the  reviewer  complacently 
remarks,  "  If  such  is  the  light  that  Bishop  Bloomfield  is  waiting  for, 
we  hope  that  his  next  edition  may  have  it " ;  confounding,  with 
the  carelessness  which  characterizes  the  whole  article,  the  Kev. 
S.  T.  Bloomfield,  the  editor  of  the  Greek  Testament,  with  Blom- 
field,  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  ignorant  that  Bloomfield,  to 
whom  he  refers  as  "  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  passage,"  had 
twenty-five  years  ago  abandoned  the  defence  of  it  as  hopeless. 
Bishop  Blomfield  had  also  long  before  expressed  his  belief  of  its 
spuriousness.* 

In  justice  to  the  editors  of  the  Boston  Review,  though  they  say 
that  "  evidently  the  time  has  not  come  to  close  the  case,"  it  should 
be  stated  that  they  supplement  the  article  by  giving  quotations 
from  Alford  and  Tregelles,  which  present  the  facts  as  they  are. 

The  existence  of  such  defences  of  the  disputed  passage  as  we 
have  had  occasion  to  notice  must  not  mislead  us  as  to  the  real 
state  of  the  case.  In  the  judgment  of  all  scholars  whose  opinion 
is  worthy  of  respect,  the  question,  I  believe,  has  long  been  re- 
garded as  settled.     This  statement,  however,  it  may  be  well  to ' 

*  See  \V.  D.  Conybeare's  Theological  Lectures,  2d  edit.,  p.  209. 


CRITICAL  EDITORS.  197 

confirm  by  definite  references,  and  by  quotations  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  most  eminent  critics. 

The  text  of  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses  has  been  rejected 
as  spurious  in  all  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  published 
within  the  present  century  which  have  any  critical  reputation 
among  scholars;  for  example,  in  those  of  Knapp  (179  7,  5th  edit. 
1840),  Matthaei  (1804),  Griesbach  (smaller  edit.  1805,  larger  1806), 
Schott  (1805,  4th  edit.  1839),  Tittmann  (stereotype  edit.  1820), 
Vater  (1824),  Lachmann  (1831,  larger  edit.  1850),  Bloomfield  (in 
his  3d  edit.  1839,  and  later  editions),*  Hahn  (1840,  new  edit. 
1861),  Tischendorf  (1841,  7th  edit.  1859),  Theile  (1844,  8th 
stereotype  edit.  1865),  "Wordsworth  (1860),t  Alford  (1861,  2d 
edit.  1862),  T.  S.  Green,  Twofold  New  Testament  (1865),  and 
in  the  editions  by  the  Catholics  Gratz  (1821,  new  edit.  1828) 
and  Scholz  (1836),  whom  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  men- 
tion. 

♦  Bloomfield  says  in  his  Recensio  Synoptica,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  776  (London, 
1828),  "To  me  it  appears  probable  that  the  verses  are  genuine";  in  his 
Jirst  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  (1831),  he  regarded  "  the  authenticity 
of  the  verses  as,  though  doubtful,  yet  verging  to  probability";  in  his 
«eca«<?  edition  (18.36),  reprinted  and  stereotyped  in  this  country  in  1837,  he 
thinks  "  we  are  neither  authorized  to  receive  the  passage  as  indubitably 
genuine,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  to  reject  it  as  indubitably  spui'ious,  but  to 
wait  for  further  evidence  " ;  in  his  third  edition  (1839)  he  marks  the  words 
as  spurious,  and  rejects  them  decidedly  in  his  notes;  in  the  ninth  edition 
(1855)  he  expresses  his  conclusion  as  follows:  "  In  short,  the  words  cannot, 
with  any  due  regard  to  those  canons  of  criticism  acted  upon  in  all  other  cases 
throughout  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  be  regarded  otherwise  than 
as  spurious.  I  find  not  a  vestige  of  them  in  any  one  of  the  numerous 
Lamb,  and  Mus.  manuscripts  which  I  have  collated." 

The  Rev.  Edward  Burton,  D.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the 
University  at  Oxford,  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  (1831,  3d 
edit.  1848),  brackets  the  passage,  and  remarks  in  a  note,  "  There  is  great 
reason  to  think  that  all  the  words  from  iv  tu>  oiipaviu  [in  heaven]  to  eV  t;}  yg 
[on  earth]  are  an  interpolation."  In  his  Hampton  Lectures,  p.  523,  he  re- 
jects them,  though  with  confessed  reluctance,  as  spurious. 

t  Though  Wordsworth  rejects  the  disputed  text  as  a  gloss,  he  finds  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  Augustine  and  others  had  done  before  him,  in 
the  eighth  verse,  understanding  by  "the  water"  the  Father,  aud  by  "  tbe 
blood  "  the  Son! 


198  APPENDIX. 

There  is  nearly  the  same  agreement  among  all  the  translators 
and  commentators  of  the  present  century,  wlio  have  any  reputa- 
tion for  learning  and  judgment.  Accordingly  the  disputed  pas- 
sage is  treated  as  spurious  by  Stolz  (4th  edit.  1804),  August! 
(1805),  Seiler  (1806),  Rosenmiiller  (5th  edit.  1808),  our  coun- 
tryman Charles  Thomson  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible  (1808), 
Hewlett  (1812,  also  181G),  Adam  Clarke  (1817),  Jaspis  (2d 
edit.  1821),  Boothroyd  (1824,  new  edit.  1843),  Lucke  (1825, 
2d  edit.  1836),  Eickli  (1828),  H.  A.  W.  Meyer  (1829),  Paulus 
(1829),  Grashof  (1830),  Granville  Penn  (1836,  '37),  De  Wette 
(1837,  5th  edit,  by  Briickner,  1863),  Jachmann  (1838),  Baum- 
garten-Crusius  (1845),  Barnes  (1847),  Dr.  Edward  Ash  (1849), 
Neander  (1851,  Eng.  trans.  1852),  Huther  (1855,  2d  edit. 
1861),  Dusterdieck  (1856),  Bunsen,  Bibelwerk,  Abth.  I.  Theil  I. 
pp.  clxxxvii.  -cxciii.  (1858),  Ebrard  (1859),  Ewald  (1861),  Holtz- 
mann,  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk  (1864),  and  the  American  Bible 
Union  in  its  revised  translation  of  the  New  Testament  (1864). 

The  only  recent  commentators  whom  I  have  seen  referred  to 
as  maintaining  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  in  debate  are  J.  E. 
V  F.  Sander  (1851),  W.  F.  Besser  (1851),  and  G.  K.  Mayer  (1851), 
—  all  German  writers.  Sander  speaks  of  the  passage  doubtfully, 
and  enters  into  no  full  discussion  of  the  question,  merely  opposing 
Griesbach's  view  of  the  testimony  of  Cyprian  and  one  or  two 
other  Latin  fathers.  Besser  and  Mayer  I  have  not  examined ; 
the  latter  is  a  Catholic.  Sander  and  Besser  are  Lutheran  clergy- 
men, who  have  published  a  good  many  small  popular  and  contro- 
versial works ;  but  I  am  not  aware  that  either  of  them  has  any 
reputation  for  critical  scholarship. 

Of  the  commentators  whom  I  have  named  on  the  writings  of 
John,  the  most  universally  esteemed,  perhaps,  is  Liicke,  Professor 
of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Bonn,  and  afterwards  in  that  of 
Gottingen.  In  reference  to  1  John  v.  7,  he  observes  :  — "  No 
result  of  modern  criticism  is  more  certain  than  that  this  passage 
is  spurious."  * 

Most  of  the  popular  commentaries  current  in  this  country  and 

*  Comm.  iiber  die  Briefe  des  Ev.  Johannes,  2*  Aufl.,  pp.  294,  296; 
or  p.  2^7,  Eng.  translation. 


STUART.  —  SinTH.  —  LEE.  —  HORNE.  199 

England  either  belong  to  the  last  century,  or  are  the  production 
of  writers,  like  Thomas  Scott,  who  have  no  pretension  to  critical 
learning. 

The  principal  writers  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  the  present  century,  as  Wardlaw,  Stuart,  and  Dr.  John  Pye 
Smith,  likewise  agree  in  its  rejection.  Thus  Professor  Stuart  says, 
"  The  text  in  1  John  v.  7  is  beyond  all  question  indefensible."  * 
Dr.  John  Pye  Smith,  whose  "  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah" 
is  perhaps  the  most  learned  and  elaborate  treatise  in  the  English 
language  on  the  deity  of  Christ,  observes :  "  That  some  learned 
writers  have  of  late  professed  themselves  satisfied  of  the  autlien- 
ticity  of  this  passage,  while  they  advance  nothing  but  surmises 
and  conjectures,  and  mistakes  almost  incredible  in  the  statement 
of  facts,  to  counterbalance  the  weight  of  evidence  on  the  other 

side,  excites  my  astonishment  and  concern The  attempt  to 

set  aside  the  decision  of  impartial  and  honest  criticism  is  painfully 
discreditable."  f 

Instead  of  giving,  as  it  would  be  easy  to  do,  a  long  list  of  the 
names  of  eminent  Tinnitarian  scholars  and  divines  of  the  present 
century,  who  have  expressed  incidentally  their  conviction  of  the 
spuriousness  of  this  famous  proof-text,  I  shall  confine  myself,  in 
what  follows,  to  those  who  have  specially  devoted  themselves  to 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  in  general,  or  who 
have  elaborately  discussed  this  subject  in  particular,  since  the 
publication  of  Mr.  Orme's  Memoir. 

Dr.  Samuel  Lee,  Regius  Profossor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University 
of  Cambridge,  in  his  Prolegomena  to  Bagster's  Polyglott  Bible, 
also  prefixed  to  his  Novum  Testamentum  Syriacum,  London, 
[1831,]  4to,  discusses  the  genuineness  of  our  "gi'eatly  vexed  pas- 
sage," and  repudiates  it  as  spurious.  (Prol.  vi.  §  2,  pp.  71-  74.) 
/  The  Rev.  Thomas  Ilartwell  Home,  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  has  given  a  very  full  account  of  the  evidence  and 

*  Letters  to  Channing,  new  edition,  iu  bis  "  Miscellanies,"  Audover, 
1846,  p.  137. 

t  Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Messiah,  third  edition,  Lond.  1837,  VoL 
III.  pp.  127,  128;  fifth  edition  (1859),  Vol.  II.  pp.  253,  254.  See  also 
Waxdlaw's  Discourses  on  the  Socinian  Controversy,  pp.  16,  16,  Amer.  edit. 


200  APPENDIX. 

arguments  on  botli  sides  of  the  question  respecting  the  contro- 
verted text.  In  the  fourth  edition  of  that  -work  (London,  1824), 
reprinted  at  Philadelphia  in  1825  in  four  volumes,  octavo,  he 
favored  the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  being  misled  by  the  inac- 
curate statements  of  Nolan,  Hales,  and  Bishop  Burgess.  But  the 
errors  of  those  writers  having  been  fully  exposed  Vjy  Oxlee,  Tur- 
ton,  and  othei-s,  he  had  the  candor  and  honesty,  in  later  editions, 
among  them  the  eighth  (1839),  reprinted  at  Philadelphia  in  1840, 
to  abandon  the  passage  as  spurious.  In  the  tenth  edition  of  this 
work  (1856),  Vol.  IV.  pp.  355-384,  Dr.  Tregelles  has  made  some 
valuable  additions  to  Home's  account  of  the  controversy.  The 
literature  of  the  subject  is  given  in  a  bibliographical  Appendix, 
pp.  384-388. 

The  Rev.  J.  Scott  Porter,  Professor  of  Sacred  Criticism  and 
Theology  to  the  Association  of  Non-subscribing  Presbyterians  in 
Ireland,  has  given  a  good  account  of  the  facts  of  the  case  in  his 
Principles  of  Textual  Criticism  (London,  1848),  pp.  494-512.  It 
is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  he  regards  the  disputed  text  as  a 
manifest  Interpolation.  Professor  Porter,  however,  is  a  Unitarian. 
I  mention  this  work  particularly  on  account  of  the  Interesting  In- 
formation which  it  gives  respecting  the  readings  of  the  passage  in 
certain  ancient  Latin  manuscripts  In  the  British  Museum. 

Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  in  his  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism 
(1852),  Vol.  IL  pp.  403-426,  after  a  full  discussion  of  the  evi- 
dence on  the  subject,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  passage  is 
"  certainly  spurious." 

No  English  scholar  of  the  present  century  has  made  so  impor- 
tant contributions  to  the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament, 
or  has  done  so  much  to  awaken  a  new  interest  in  the  subject,  as 
Dr.  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles.  He  has  devoted  himself  with 
unwearied  zeal  and  diligence  for  more  than  twenty-five  years  to 
the  collation  of  manuscripts  and  the  collection  of  materials  for  a 
new  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  of  which  the  first  part  only, 
containing  the  Gospels,  has  yet  been  published.  His  treatise  on 
the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  contained  in  Vol. 
IV.  of  Home's  Introduction,  tenth  edition,  and  also  published 
separately,   is   an  original   Avork   of  the  highest   authority   and 


TREGELLES.  —  TISCHENDORF.  201 

value.  Bleek,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  (Ber- 
lin, 1862),  p.  34,  strongly  expresses  the  wish  that  it  might  be 
translated  into  German.*  What,  then,  does  Dr.  Tregelles  say 
of  our  passage  ? 

"  To  enter  into  a  formal  discussion  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
testimony  of  the  Heavenly  Witnesses,  1  John  v.  7,"  he  observes, 
"  is  really  superfluous  ;  for  it  would  only  be  doing  over  again  what 
has  been  done  so  repeatedly  that  there  cannot  be  two  opinions  in 
the  minds  of  those  who  now  knoiu  the  evidence,  and  are  capable 

of  appreciating  its  force I  only  add,  that  if  the  words  be 

considered  genuine,  then  any  addition  of  any  kind,  found  in  any 
manuscript  (however  recent),  and  supported  by  the  later  copies  of 
any  one  version,  in  opposition  to  the  more  ancient,  possesses  as  good 
a  claim  to  be  received  and  used  as  a  portion  of  Holy  Scripture."  •)■ 

The  most  distinguished  of  the  recent  critical  editors  of  the 
Greek  Testament  is  Constantine  Tischendorf,  Professor  of  The- 
ology in  the  University  of  Leipsic.  Speaking  of  the  text  of  the 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  he  says :  — 

"  That  this  spurious  addition  should  continue  to  be  published  as 
a  part  of  the  Epistle,  I  regard  as  an  impiety  as  well  as  an  act  of 
ignorance  or  rather  of  fraud.  The  relation  of  the  passage  to 
criticism  is  such,  that  we  must  exclude  it  without  hesitation  from 
the  sacred  volume,  unless  the  entire  art  of  criticism,  with  all  its 
apparatus  of  ancient  witnesses,  is  to  be  regarded  as  worthless  and 
rejected.  Such  being  the  case,  what  temerity  it  is,  what  con- 
tempt of  the  truth  delivei-ed  by  the  sacred  writers,  to  insert  those 
words  into  the  text,  through  fear  that  by  their  removal  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  Trinity  may  be  endangered ! "  X 

*  I  may  mention  incidentally,  that  Bleek,  whose  "  History  of  the  Text 
of  the  New  Testament,"  in  the  work  referred  to,  may  be  regarded  as 
the  best  recent  German  treatise  on  the  subject,  emphatically  rejects  1 
John  V.  7  as  spurious.  —  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.,  p.  593.  So  Reuss,  Geschichte 
der  heilifjen  Schriften  Neuen  TesCamcnts,  i.  e.  "  History  of  the  Sacred 
Writings  of  the  New  Testament,"  third  edition  (1860,  fourth  edition 
1864),  I)  360. 

t  Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  London, 
1854,  8vo,  pp.  226,  227. 

J  Novum  Testamentum  Triglottum,  1854,  Prolcgoni.,  p.  ex. 
9* 


202  APPENDIX. 

One  of  the  best  books  illustrating  the  application  of  critical 
principles  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  "  Course  of 
Developed  Criticism  on  Passages  of  the  New  Testament  materi- 
ally aifected  by  Various  Headings,"  published  at  London  in  1856 
by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Sheldon  Green,  late  Fellow  of  Christ's 
College,  Cambridge,  the  author  of  a  "  Treatise  on  the  Grammar 
of  the  New  Testament,"  and,  more  recently,  of  a  new  translation 
of  the  Greek  Testament  accompanied  by  a  critical  edition  of  the 
original  text,  entitled  "  The  Twofold  New  Testament,"  &c.  In 
regard  to  1  John  v.  7,  Mr.  Green  observes :  — 

"  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  if  a  critic  could  be  supposed  to 
be  debarred  from  aU  documentary  evidence  on  either  side  in  the 
present  case,  except  those  few  MSS.  which  exhibit  the  verse,  and 
the  only  version  that  has  It,  namely,  the  common  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate, the  circumstances  which  even  thus  would  come  under  hia 
notice,  would  form  a  sufficient  ground  for  its  condemnation  as  a 
Bpurious  accretion."  * 

In  1861  the  Rev.  Frederick  Henry  Scrivener,  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge,  Rector  of  St.  Gerrans,  Cornwall,  published  "  A  Plain 
Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,"  containing 
much  valuable  information,  the  result  of  the  author's  personal 
investigations.  Mr.  Scrivener  has  also  earned  the  gratitude  of 
biblical  students  by  his  published  collations  of  manuscripts,  and 
bis  very  careful  and  scholarly  editions  of  the  Codex  Augiensis 
and  the  Codex  Bezce.  In  speaking  of  the  controversy  on  1  John 
V.  7,  after  referring  to  Porson,  he  adds  :  — 

"  The  Letters  of  that  prince  of  scholars,  and  the  contempo- 
raneous researches  of  Herbei't  Marsh,  have  completely  decided 
the  contest:  Bishop  Burgess  alone,  while  yet  among  us  [d.  1837], 
clung  obstinately  to  a  few  scattered  outposts  after  the  main  field 
of  battle  had  been  lost  beyond  recovery. 

"  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  declare  our 
conviction  that  the  disputed  words  were  not  written  by  St.  John : 
that  they  were  originally  brought  into  Latin  copies  in  Africa  from 
the  margin,  where  they  had  been  placed  as  a  pious  and  orthodox 
gloss  on  V.  8  :  that  from  the  Latin  they  crept  into  two  or  three 

*  Course  of  Developed  Criticism,  pp.  183, 184. 


ALFORD.  —  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS.  203 

late  Greek  codices,  and  thence  into  the  printed  Greek  text,  a 
place  to  which  they  had  no  rightful  claim."  * 

The  best  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  with  English 
notes  is,  I  believe,  universally  admitted  to  be  that  of  the  Rev. 
Henry  Alford,  D.  D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  the  first  volume  of 
which  was  pubhshed  in  1849,  and  has  already  passed  through  at 
least  five  editions.  The  volume  containing  the  Epistles  of  John 
(Vol.  IV.  Part  II.  of  the  work)  first  appeared  in  1861  ;  2d  edit., 
1862.  The  following  extract  from  his  note  on  the  passage  is  suf- 
ficiently explicit :  — 

"  The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  words  read  in  the 
Received  Text  at  the  end  of  verse  7,  has  been  discussed,  as  far 
as  external  grounds  are  concerned,  in  the  digest;  and  it  has  been 
seen,  that  unless  pure  caprice  is  to  be  followed  in  the  criticism  of 
the  sacred  text,  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  supposing 
them  genuine.  Even  the  supposed  citations  of  them  in  early 
Latin  Fathers  have  now,  on  closer  examination,  disappeared. 
Something  remains  to  be  said  on  internal  grounds,  on  which  we 
have  full  right  to  enter,  now  that  the  other  is  secui-ed.  And  on 
these  grounds  it  must  appear,  on  any  fair  and  unprejudiced  con- 
sideration, that  the  words  are  1)  alien  from  the  context:  2)  in 
themselves  incoherent,  and  betraying  another  hand  than  the 
Apostle's."     This  Alford  proceeds  to  show. 

Since  the  date  of  Mr.  Orme's  Memoir  (1830)  many  Greek 
manuscripts  containing  the  First  Epistle  of  John  have  been 
brought  to  light,  or  collated  for  the  first  time,  by  Scholz,  Tischen- 
dorf.  Scrivener,  and  others.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  give 
here  a  brief  summary  of  the  present  state  of  the  evidence  for  and 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  disputed  text.  For  details,  one  may 
consult  the  recent  critical  editions  of  Tischendorf  and  Alford. 

The  number  of  Greek  manuscripts,  including  lectionaries, 
which  are  known  to  omit  the  text  of  the  Heavenly  "Witnesses, 
is  more  than  two  hundred  and  twenty-Jive,  and  probably  not  less 
than  two  hundred  andfifty.\    Among  these  are  the  Sinaitic  and  the 

*  I'liiin  Introd.  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Now  Test.,  pp.  462,  463. 
t  See  the  Rev.  A.  W.  Grafton's  stateiiiPiit  in  Alfonl's  Greek  Test.,  Vol. 
IV.  pp.  260,  270,  2d  edit.;  Scrivener's  Plain  Introduction,  p.  469. 


204  APPENDIX. 

Vatican,  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  Alexandrine,  of  the  fifth. 
The  disputed  words,  on  the  other  hand,  are  found  in  the  text  of 
but  tico  Greek  manuscripts,  one  (No.  162)  of  the  fifteenth  or  six- 
teenth century,  the  other  (34)  of  the  sixteenth,  and  neither  of 
any  critical  importance.  (See  before,  pp.  181,  195.)  The  varia- 
tions in  the  readings  of  these  two  manuscripts,  the  omission  of  the 
article,  and  their  conformity  to  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  other  places, 
make  it  in  the  highest  degree  pi'obable  that  they  derived  the  pas- 
sage by  translation  from  that  version.  The  disputed  text  is  also 
found  in  the  margin  of  two  other  Greek  manuscripts  (Nos.  69  and 
1 73)  in  writing  not  earlier  than  the  sixteenth  century.  In  this 
account  I  have  not  noticed  the  Codex  Ravianus  at  Berlin,  which 
has  been  proved  to  be  a  forgery ;  or  a  Wolfenbiittel  manuscript 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Codex  Guelpherhytanus  D,  already 
referred  to  (see  p.  194),  both  of  which,  as  not  possessing  the 
slightest  authority,  are  excluded  by  the  critical  editors  fii'om  their 
lists. 

The  disputed  words  are  also  wanting  in  all  the  ancient  versions ; 
namely,  in  the  Pcshito  Syriac  (Cent,  ii.),  the  Thebaic  or  Sahidic 
(ii.  or  iii.),  the  Memphitic  or  Coptic  (iii.  or  iv.),  the  Ethiopia 
iv.  or  v.),  the  Armenian  (v.),  the  Ilarclean  or  Philoxenian  Syriac 
(made  A.  D.  508,  revised  616),  the  several  Arabic  versions,  and 
the  Slavonic  (ix.),  though  it  has  been  foisted  into  some  editions  of 
the  Pcshito,  the  Armenian,  and  the  Slavonic,  in  opposition  to  the 
authority  of  the  manuscripts.*  Nor  do  they  properly  belong 
either  to  the  Old  Latin  (Cent,  ii.),  or  to  the  Vulgate  (Cent,  iv.), 
though  these  versions  have  been  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the 
passage.  The  Old  Latin  has  already  been  spoken  of,  in  the  re- 
marks on  Wiseman's  theory  (see  before,  p.  188).     That  the  pas- 

*  The  history  of  its  Introduction  into  several  printed  editions  of  the 
Syriac  is  instructive.  Tremellius,  in  his  edition  of  tlie  Peshito  published 
in  1569,  left  a  blank  space  for  it  in  the  test,  and  placed  Ms  own  translation 
of  it  into  Stj7-iac  in  a  note;  Gutbier  (1664)  inserted  this  translation  in  his 
text,  and  in  his  Notes  (1667)  remarks:  — "  Since  it  is  well  known  that  the 
Arianw  have  in  this  place  neither  spared  the  Greek  text  itself,  nor  the 
Oriental  versions,  we  have  inserted  this  verse,  which  is  wanting  in  other 
editions,  from  the  Notes  of  Tremellius."  After  him,  Schaaf  inserted  it  in 
bis  edition  (1709  and  1717). 


CONCLUDING  SUMMARY.  205 

Bage  is  also  an  interpolation  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  proved  by  the 
fcict,  that,  though  contained  in  a  large  majority  of  the  manuscripts 
of  that  version,  it  is  wanting  in  the  two  oldest  and  best,  the  Codex 
Amiatinus  written  about  A.  D.  541,  and  the  Codex  Fuldensis  of 
about  the  same  age,  and  in  more  than  Ji/li/  others,  many  of  them 
of  high  antiquity ;  by  its  various  readings  and  uncertain  position 
in  the  manuscripts  which  do  contain  it,  in  many  of  the  older  ones 
it  being  found  only  in  the  margin,  or  after  the  eighth  verse ;  and 
finally,  by  the  total  want  of  reference  to  it  in  the  writings  of  very 
many  of  the  older  Latin  fathers  who  had  occasion  to  cite  it,  in- 
cluding Jerome,  the  author  of  the  version.  The  first  Latin  writer 
who  has  clearly  quoted  it  is  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  who  flourished 
near  the  end  of  the  fifth  century ;  it  is  quoted  by  a  few  other 
Latin  writei-s  previous  to  the  ninth  century,  and  by  many  after 
that  date.  The  oldest  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  which  contains 
it  belongs  probably  to  the  seventh  or  eighth  century.* 

This  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the  known  Greek  manu- 
scripts WRITTEN  BEFORE  THE  INVENTION  OF  PRINTING,  and 
of  ALL  THE  ANCIENT  VERSIONS,  is  Strikingly  confirmed  by  the 
absence  of  the  passage  from  the  Scripture  quotations  of  all  tub 
Greek  fathers  before  the  fourteenth  century,  though 
several  of  them,  as  Gregory  Nazianzen  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
with  great  ingenuity  extract  proofs  of  the  Trinity  from  the  verses 
before  and  after  it. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  case,  what  must  we  think  of  those 
who  in  this  nineteenth  century  quote  the  passage  as  a  proof-text 
in  sermons  preached  to  the  unlearned,  or  publish  it  in  books  de- 
signed for  popular  circulation,  for  Sunday  Schools  and  Bible 
Classes,  without  a  hint  of  its  spuriousness  ?  ^Vhat  must  we  think 
of  those,  who,  noticing  the  fact  that  its  genuineness  has  been 
disputed,    denounce    their   fellow-Christians    as    arbitrarily   and 

*  1  refer  to  the  La  Cava  manuscript;  see  before,  p.  189.  It  is  remarkable, 
that  both  this  manuscript,  and  the  other  oldest  Latin  manuscript  which  con- 
tains 1  John  v.  7,  —  the  Speculum  published  by  Mai,  —  support  also  the 
spurious  Epistlo  of  Paul  to  the  Laodiceans.  So  No.  11,852  (9th  cent.) 
of  the  Additional  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum.  See  Westcott's  art.  on  the 
Vulgate  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  III.  1713,  note  q. 


206  APPENDIX. 

■wickedly  rejecting  it  from  repugnance  to  tbe  doctrine  it  is  sup- 
posed to  teach  ?  What  must  we  think  of  the  managers  of  relig- 
ious Societies,  who  publish  editions  of  the  New  Testament  for 
family  use,  "  with  notes  designed  io  give  the  results  of  critical  in- 
vestigation" *  in  which  there  is  no  note  on  a  passage  like  this  ?  We 
may  not  assume  to  pass  judgment  on  the  character  of  the  persons 
concerned,  for  our  knowledge  of  their  motives  and  circumstances 
is  necessarily  imperfect;  but  there  would  seem  to  be  room  for 
but  one  opinion  among  honest  and  intelligent  men,  when  their 
attention  is  directed  to  the  subject,  in  respect  to  the  practices 
themselves. 

Again  ;  how  long  shall  this  notorious  interpolation  be  circulated 
in  the  popular  versions  of  the  Bible  without  mark  of  doubt,  and 
be  imposed  upon  the  unlearned  as  a  part  of  what  they  are  taught 
to  revcJbe  as  "  the  word  of  God  "  ?  In  regard  to  Luther's  Ger- 
man version,  in  which  it  is  well  known  to  have  been  inserted  long 
after  his  death  in  defiance  of  his  expressed  wishes,  it  would  seem 
that  there  could  be  no  hesitation  in  striking  it  from  the  text.  The 
question  in  regard  to  the  common  English  version  presents  greater 
difficulty.  But  I  will  quote,  for  the  benefit  of  those  interested, 
two  expressions  of  opinion  on  the  matter. 

"  Fear  of  the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  one  hand,"  says  a  recent 
writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  "  and  of  the  Socinians  on 
the  other,  appears  to  have  induced  the  half-hearted  authorities 
of  the  Church  of  England  to  retain  this  known  interpolation  in  a 
version  which  was  to  be  the  sole  appeal  of  the  unlearned  vulgar. 
And  we  cannot  consider  it  creditable  to  our  Church,  that  this 
spurious  passage  is  annually  read  to  the  laity  in  the  Epistle  for 
the  First  Sunday  after  Easter,  and  in  one  of  the  lessons  on 
Trinity  Sunday."  f 

The  following  is  from  an  article  on  "  The  Ethics  of  Editorship," 
by  a  writer  whose  name  will  command  universal  respect :  — 

"  It  is  difficult  to  decide  how  far  a  received  text  ought  to  be 
altered  upon  the  discovery  of  its  incorrectness.     And  with  regard 

*  These  words  are  from  the  title-page  of  an  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment recently  published  by  the  American  Tract  Society,  New  York, 
t  Edinburgh  Review  for  July,  1805;  CXXII.  113. 


WOOLSEY.  207 

to  the  text  of  the  Scriptures  this  question  becomes  one  of  great 

delicacy  and  importance But  what  shall  we  say  of  a  passage 

like  1  John  v.  7,  in  which  all  competent  judges  concede  that  there 
is  an  interpolation,  and  which  many  persons  omit  when  they  read 
the  context  in  public.  Do  not  truth  and  honesty  require  that  such 
a  passage  should  be  struck  out  of  our  English  Bibles,  a  passage 
which  Luther  would  not  express  in  his  translation,  and  which  did 
not  creep  into  the  German  Bible  until  nearly  fifty  years  after  his 
death  ?  Would  the  shock  of  its  insertion  in  brackets,  or  of  its 
disappearance  from  our  version,  do  as  much  harm  as  the  display 
of  Christian  honesty  and  of  true  reverence  to  the  genuine  word 
of  God  would  do  good  ?  We  suggest  that  a  number  of  biblical 
critics,  of  approved  character  for  orthodoxy,  should  move  in  this 
matter,  and  demand  at  least  a  careful  consideration  of  this  text. 
We  cannot  but  believe  that  the  state  of  the  case  is  so  plain  aa 
to  admit  of  but  one  conclusion.  And  we  cannot  think  that 
anything  would  prevent  the  change  from  being  effected,  but  an 
unworthy  timidity,  which  Is  neither  Christian  nor  upright."  * 

*  The  Rev.  Theodore  D.  Woolsey,  D.D.,  President  of  Yale  College,  in 
the  New  Englander  for  August,  1852;  X.  384. 


Note  to  Page  185,  Line  27. 

It  has  since  been  shown,  by  the  researches  of  Dr.  Klose,  that 
1  John  V.  7  was  interpolated  in  Luther's  version  as  early  as  1582, 
in  an  edition  published  at  Frankfort,  in  quarto.  See  the  note  on 
the  passage  In  Huther's  Commentary  (in  German),  2d  edit.,  1861, 
p.  211.     Tanzer  in  Huther's  note  is  a  misprint  for  Panzer. 


INDEX. 


^THiopic  version,  8,  57,  114,  204. 
African  fathers  on  1  John. v.  7,  105- 

108,  187-189. 
Alexandrine  manuscript,  16, 113,  204. 
Alford,  Henrv,  137 ;  quoted,  203. 
Alogi,  134,  138. 
Ambrose,  Saint,  17,  19. 
Amelotte,  Father  Denis,  41. 
American  Bible  Union,  198. 
American  Tract  Society's  edition  of 

the  New  Testament,  206  n. 
Antioch,    Second    Council    of   (4th 

cent.),  151,  154-156,  167. 
Apostvlos,  52. 
Aquinas,  rhomas.  Saint.  See  Thomas 

Aquinas. 
Arabic  versions,  8,  57,  204. 
Arians,  14,  17, 18,  34,  59,  60, 195, 196. 
Arius,  52. 
Armenian  version,  115  -  117  ;   8,  52, 

57,  113,  175,  204. 
Article,    the    Greek,    before    cV    in 

1  John  V.  8,    97,  183,  184. 
Ash,  Edward,  198. 
Athanasius,  189,  190. 
Athanasius,  Pseudo-,  52,  176,  177. 
Athanasius  the  younger,  146. 
Augusti,  J.  C.  W.,  198. 
Augustine  or  Austin,  Saint,  95,  121, 

122;  4,  5,  45,  89,  135,  186,  197  n. 

Speculum  ascribed  to  him,  187, 188. 

Barix)w,  Thomas,  Bp.,  147. 

Barnes,  Albert,  198. 

Basil  the  Great,  87,  146. 

Bauingarten-Crusius,  L.  F.  0.,  198. 

Beatus,  88,  89. 

Beda,  or  Bede,  4,  89. 

Ben  David,  pseudon.  /See  Jones,  John, 

I>.D. 
Bengel  {Lat.  Bengelius),  J.  A.,  34  - 

36,  75,  97,  143,  145. 
Benson,    George,     quoted,    45-47; 

51. 
Bentley,  Richard,  27-31;    22,  25, 

148,  147, 159. 


Berlin  manuscript.    See  Codex  JRavi- 

anus. 
Besser,  W.  F.,  198. 
Beza,  or  de  B6ze,  Theodore,  8, 40, 41, 

42,  48,  50,  57,  59. 
Black,  Rev.  John,  author  of  Pateoro- 

majca,  quoted,  124-130;  144. 
Bleek,  P^rieJrich,  201,  and  note. 
Blomfield,  G.  J..  Bp.  of  London,  196. 
Bloomfield,  S.  T.,  196;  quoted,  197. 
Boothroyd,  Benjamin,  198. 
Bossuet,  J.  B.,  Bp.,  quoted,  93,  94. 
Boston  Jieview,  195,  196. 
Bowyer,  William,  47,  51. 
British  Critic,  127 ;  quoted,  185. 
Brvennius,  Josephus,  122. 
Buckminster,  J.  S.,  183,  184. 
Bugenhagen,  Johann,  185. 
Bull,  George,  Bp.,  158,  159,  161. 
Bullinger,  Heinrich,  14,  185. 
Bunsen,  C.  C.  J.,  Baron  von,  198. 
Burgess,  Thomas,  Bp.,  130-147,  151 
■  -162,  169,  170,  186,  193;  112,  127, 

167,  185,  202. 
Burnet,  Gilbert,  Bp.,  13-16,  190. 
Burton,  Edward,  quoted,  197  n. 
Butler,  Charles,  quoted,  90-96;  66 

n.,  183,  184. 

Calamy,  Edmund,  quoted,  23,  24. 

Calecas,  Manuel,  122. 

Calvin,  Jean,  9. 

Carthage,  Council  of,  under  Huneric, 

106,    107;  48,  52,  77,  94,  96,  146, 

183,  184,  187. 
Casley,  David,  34. 
Cassiodorus,  or  Cassiodorius,  52,  88, 

89,  139,  146,  167. 
Castalio,  or  Castellio,  Sebastian,  9. 
Christian  Observer  (Joseph  Jowett), 

quoted,  84-90. 
Clarke,  Adam,  quoted,  78-84;  132, 

147,  198. 
Clarke,  Samuel,  D.D.,  21. 
Clemens  Alexandriniis,  87,  138,  139, 

146. 

M 


210 


INDEX. 


Cochlfcus,  Johannes,  177. 

Codex  Amiatinus,  205. 

Codex  Fuldensis,  205. 

Codex  Guelpherbytanus  (Wolfenbiit- 
tel)  D,  194,204:  167,  172. 

Codex  Guelpherbytanus  XVI.  7,  (No. 
69,)  194,204;   167,  172. 

Codex  ly  of  Stephens,  or  Codex  Vatabli, 
identified  by  Marsli  with  MS.  Kk. 
6.  4.  in  the  Library  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  63  -  73. 

Codex  Montforlianus,  alias  Britanni- 
cus,  or  Dubliiiensis,  (No.  34,)  3,  123, 
124,  195;  6,  34,  57,  59,  78,  128, 
132,  147,  167,  182,  204. 

Codex  Oliobonianus  298,  in  the  Vati- 
can Library,  (No.  162,)  181,  182, 
193,  204. 

Codex  Eavianus,  at  Berlin,59, 174, 204. 

Colinajus,  Simon,  7. 

Complutensian  edition  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 2,  3,  25  -  27,  34,  35,  42,  48, 
50,  57,  80-84,  129,  130. 

Conybeare,  W.  D.,  196  n. 

Coptic  or  Memphitic  version,  8,  57, 113, 
175,  204. 

Crito  Cantabrigiends,  pseudon.  See 
Turton,  Thomas. 

Cyprian,  136-138,  188;  17,  18,  45, 
'52,  88,  89,  94,  107,  131,  145,  146, 
187.  189,  198. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  4,  87,  113,  114, 
146,  189,  190,  205. 

Davidson,  Samuel,  quoted,  200. 

De  Missy.     See  Missy. 

Devil's  agency  in  corrupting  the  text 
of  Scripture,  58,  59. 

Dialogue  between  Anus  and  Athana- 
sius,  52. 

Didymus,  87. 

Diocletian's  persecution,  107. 

Diodorus   of  Antioch,  144,  145,  146. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  145,  146. 

Dorhout,  Ambrosias,  145. 

Dublin  manuscript.  See  Codex  Mont- 
forlianus. 

D'iisterdieck,  F.  (A.  C),  198. 

Ebrard,  J.  H.  A.,  198. 

Eclectic  Review  (J.  P.  Smith),  quoted, 

98-100;  180. 
Edinburgh  Review,  quoted,  206. 
Elzevir  (properly  Elsevier)  editors,  8. 
Emlyn,  Thomas,  20  -  23. 
England,  Church  of,  206. 


Epiplianius,  87. 

Erasmus,  Desiderius,  quoted,  2-6: 

14,  48,  50,  53,  59,  128,  130. 
Ernesti,  J.  A.,  132. 
Etherius,  88,  89. 

Ethiopic  version.     See  ^thiopic. 
Eucherius,  45,  52,  89,  107,  146. 
Eugenius,   Carthaginensis,  106,   107. 

See  also  Carthage^  Council  of. 
Eusebius  Ccesariensis,  106,  108,  109, 

195,  196. 
Eusebius  Vercellensis,  110,  111. 
Euthymius  Zigabenus,  151,  152,  167. 
Evanson,  W.  A.,  171,  178-180. 
Ewald,  (G.)  H.  (A.),  198. 

Facundus,  45,  77,  89,  135,  137, 188. 
Farley,  F.  A.,  193. 
Fraud,  pious,  47,  48. 
French  versions.  Old,  109  -  111. 
Fulgeutius,  45,  52,   88,  89,  94,  107, 
137,  146,  167,  177,  187. 

Gadolus,  Bernardinus,  quoted,  141, 

142. 
Gibbon,  Edward,  quoted,  47  -  49. 
Glossa  Ordinaria,  140-142,  153. 
Grafton,  A.  W.,  203  n. 
Grashof,  J.  W.,  198. 
Gratz,  Aloys,  197. 
Greek    Church,    its    Confession    of 

Faith,  52. 
Greek  fathers  ignorant  of  1  John  v. 

7,  87,  146,  205. 
Greek  manuscripts  on  1  John  v.  7, 

9  -  11, 118  -  120,  174,  189, 190,  193, 

194,  195,  196,  197  n.,  203,  204. 
Greek  Testament,  critical  editions  of 

the,  7,  8,  197. 
Green,  T.  S.,  197;  quoted,  202. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  87, 154, 189,  190, 

205. 
Griesbach,  J.  J.,  quoted,   100,  101; 

51,  105,  131-133,  194.  197. 
Gutbier,  iEgidius,  46,  204  n. 

Hahn,  (H.)  A.,  197. 

Hales,  William,  quoted,  117-120, 195. 

Hammond,  Henry,  17  -  19,  147,  158 

Harford,  J.  S.,  Life  ofBp.  Burgess,  193 . 

Hewlett,  John,  198. 

Holtzmann,  H.  (J.),  198. 

Home,  T.  H.,  quoted,  180-182;  199, 

200. 
Horsley,  Samuel,  Bp.,  132, 168. 
Howe,  John,  17. 


INDEX. 


211 


Huneric,  or  Hunneric,  Council  of  Af- 
rican Bisiiops  suminoued  by.  See 
Carthage,  Council  of. 

Hunt,  W.  W.,  192. 

Huther,  J.  E.,  198,  208. 

Huvshe,  Francis,  quoted,  162-167; 
169,  191. 

Italic  version.  See  Latin  version,  Old. 

Jachmaxn,  K.  R.,  198. 

Jaspis,  G.  S.,  198. 

Jerome  {Lat.  Hieronvmus),  89,  205; 
Preface  to  the  Catholic  Jijnstles 
falsely  ascribed  to  him,  4,  5,  7,  11, 
14  -  16,  17, 19,  47,  52, 112,  134, 135, 
146,  176,  189,  190. 

Joachim,  the  Abbot,  80  n. 

1  John  V.  7,  how  introduced  into  the 
Latin  version,  18,  45-47,  76,  77, 
89,  121,  122,  202,  203.  Summary 
of  the  evidence  against  it,  by  Per- 
son, 60;  the  Kclectic  Review,  98, 
99;  Oxlee,  173-177;  concluding 
summarv,  203  -  205. 

Jones,  John,  D.  D.,  (Ben  David,)  150, 
151,  153,  154. 

Jortin,  John,  his  Life  of  Erasmus 
quoted,  3-7.  He  rejects  1  John  v. 
7;  7. 

Jowett,  Joseph,  quoted,  84  -  90. 

Juda,  Leo  de,  9. 

Justin  Martyr,  87. 

Kaye,  John,  Bp.,  quoted,  188. 
Kenrick,  F.  P.,  Abp.,  quoted,  193. 
Kettuer,  F.  E.,  16,  17. 
Knapp,  G.  C,  197. 
Knittel,  F.  A.,  75, 170  - 172, 178  - 180, 
194. 

La  Cava  manuscript,  189,  205  n. 

Lachmann,  Karl,  197. 

Laodiceans,  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the, 

205  n. 
Latin  fathers  on  1  John  v.  7,  87  -  89, 

105-108,  187-189,205. 
Latin  manuscripts  on  1  John  v.  7,  8, 

11-15,  78,  79,  95,  190,   192,  200, 

205.    /See  also  La  Cava  manuscript, 

Upeculum. 
Latin  version.  Old,  or  Italic,  95,  131, 

186-189,  204. 
Latin  Vulgate  version,  8,  11,  12,  14- 

16,52,  57,  58,  76-81,  83,  84,  95, 

167,  189,  190,  200,  204,  205. 


Lee,  Edward,  Abp.,  2. 

Lee,  Samuel,  199. 

Le  Long,  Jacques,  62,  63. 

Liber  adversus  Vnrimadwn,  177.     See 

also  Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Lincohi  College,  Rector  of.    See  Ta- 

tliam,  Edward. 
Lindsey,  Tbeophilus,  (Sosipater,)  60, 

61. 
Louvain  divines,  57. 
Lowth,  Robert,  Bp.,  quoted,  184. 
Liicke,  (G.  C.)  F.,  quoted,  198. 
Lutlier,  Martin.  8,  185,  186,  206,  207, 

208  n. 

Mace,  William,  32,  33. 

McLeod,  Alexander,  184. 

Mai,     Cardinal    Angelo,    187,    189; 

quoted,  191. 
Marcus  Cdedensis,  52,  107,  187,  188. 
Marsh,  Herbert,  Bp.,  quoted,  63  -  73, 

121-124,  181;  202. 
Martin,  David,  20-23,  41,  147. 
Matthsei,  C.  F.  von,  quoted,  142, 143; 

197. 
Maximus  the  Confessor,  108,  146. 
Mayer,  G.  K.,  198. 
Mever,  H.  A.  W.,  198. 
Michaelis,  J.  D.,  quoted,  74  -  78, 128 ; 

66  n. 
Middleton,  Convers,  30,  31. 
xMiddleton,  T.  F.,  Bp.,  quoted,  96- 

98;  184. 
Mill,  John,  19,  20,  143. 
Missv,  Cesar  de,  41. 
Monk,  J.  H.,  Bp.,  quoted,  31  n. 
Monthly  Anthology  (J.  S.   Buckmin- 

ster),  183, 184. 

Neander,  (J.)  A.  ( W.),  198. 
Neapolitan  manuscript,  (No.  173,)  193, 

204. 
Newton,  Sj>  Isaac,  quoted,  42-44,  51. 
Nolan,  Frederick,  quoted,  101  -  111 ; 

138,  147.  195,  196. 
North  British  Review,  quoted,  190. 

fficoi.AMPADius,  Johannes,  185. 

Uxlee,  John,  quoted,  17-19,  111- 
117,147-149,  167-169;  191.  His 
summary  of  the  evidence  against 
1  John  v.  7,  173-178. 

P.,  Rev.  T.,  of  C /,  37,  88. 

PaltBoromaica.  See  Black,  Rev.  John. 
Panoplist,  183,  184. 


212 


INDEX. 


Paulus,  H.  E.  G.,  198. 

Pearson,  John,  Bp.,  158,  159. 

Penn,  Granville,  198. 

Peshito  Syriac  versio7i,  8,  46,  47,  57, 
174,  204. 

Petrus  Coraestor,  Magister  in  Jlisto- 
riis,  141. 

Pfaff,  C.  M.,  143. 

PluBbadius,  or  Phcebadius,  52,  107. 

Philoxenian  or  Hardean  Syriac  ver- 
sio7i,  8,  114,  175,  204. 

Porson,  Richard,  quoted,  36,  55  -  60, 
152;  29,  49,  51,  129,  136,  137,  139, 
140,  151,  154,  202.  Vindicated  by 
Criio  Cantabriyiensis,  156  -  162. 

Porter,  J.  Scott,  200. 

Possidius,  187,  188. 

Quarterly  Review  (Thomas  Tur- 
ton),  quoted,  60,  136-144,  153- 
156. 

Eeceived  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, defended  by  Nolan,  101- 
108. 

Reuss,  Eduard,  201. 

Rickli,  Karl,  185,  198. 

Rinck,  W.  F.,  190  n. 

Rocca,  Angelo,  189. 

Roger,  the  Abbe  Louis,  20. 

Rosenmiiller,  J.  G.,  198. 

Sabatier,  or  Sabbathier,  Pierre,  95, 

143. 
Sahidic  or   Thebaic  version,  8,  175, 

204. 
Sander,  J.  E.  F.,  198. 
Sardis,  Epistle  of  the  Bishops  at,  87. 
Schaaf,  Carolus,  46,  204  n. 
Schmid,  C.  F.,  143. 
Schoiz,  J.  M.  A.,  181,  182,  192,  193, 

197. 
Schott,  H.  A.,  197. 
Scott,  Thomas,  199. 
Scrivener,  F.  H.,  quoted,  153  n.,  202. 
Sebastian!,  Don  Leopoldo,  190. 
Seller,  G.  F.,  198. 
Selden,  John,  143,  158,  159. 
Semler,  J.  S.,  66  n.,  74. 
Simon,  Father  Richard,  quoted,  9  - 

13;   16,  20,  21. 
Sinaitic  inanuscript,  203,  204. 
Slavonic  version,  8,  57,  176,  204. 
Sloss,  James,  36. 
Smalbroke,    Richard,    Bp.,   quoted, 

25-27;  147. 


Smith,  John  Pye,  quoted,  82,  83, 199. 

See  also  Eclectic  Review. 
Smith,  Thomas,  16. 
Socinians,  Person's  opinion  of  the,  66, 

57. 
Sosii)ater,   pseudon.      See  Lindsey, 

Tlieophilus. 
Speculum,  the,  edited  by  Mai,  187  - 

189,  192,  205  «. 
Stephens  ( properly  Estienne),  Rob- 
ert, 38-41,   61-73,  84-86,  163- 

166,  191;  8,  20,  34,  35,  48,  60,  51, 

57,  129,  173. 
Stillingfleet,  Edward,  Bp.,  158,  159. 
Stolz,  J.  J.,  198. 
Strabo,  Walafrid,  134,  135, 140  -  142, 

153. 
Stresow,  K.  F.,  75. 
Stuart,  Moses,  quoted,  199. 
Slunica  {Span.  Zuiiiga),  J.  L.,  2,  42. 
Symbolum   Antiochenum.     See  Anti- 

och.  Second  Council  of. 
Syriac  versions,  8.     See  also  Peshito, 

Philoxenian. 

Tatham,  Edward,  Rector  of  Lincoln 
College,  152,  153. 

Tertullian,  17,  18,  45,  52,  107,  137, 
138,  145,  187,  188. 

Theile,  C.  G.  W.,  197. 

Theophilus,  Books  to,  falsely  ascribed 
to  Athanasius,  176,  177.  See  also 
Vigil ius  Tapsensis. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  Saint,  80. 

Thomson,  Charles,  198. 

Tischendorf,  (L.  F.)  C,  197;  quoted, 
201. 

Tittmann,  J.  A.  H.,  197. 

Travis,  George,  quoted,  49-55,  63- 
73;  75,  140,  141. 

Tregelles,  S.  P.,  quoted,  188, 194, 195, 
200,  201. 

Tremellius,  Immanuel,  46,  204  n. 

Trent,  Council  of,  91-93,  191,  193. 

TurnbuU,  Joseph,  194,  195. 

Turton,  Thomas,  Bp.,  (  Crito  Canta- 
briyiensis and  Clemens  Anylicanus,) 
quoted,  29-31,  35,  36,  54,  55,  157  - 
169,  180;  188  n.  See  also  Quarterly 
Review. 

Twells,  Leonard,  33,  36. 

UscAN,  115,  116,  175. 

Valla's  Greek  MSS.,  61,  67. 
Vater,  J.  S.,  197. 


INDEX. 


213 


Vatican  manuscript  (No.  1209),  6, 15, 

16,25-27,  41,204. 
Venice  manuscript,  14,  15,  189,  190. 
Versions,   ancient,  8,  195,  196,  204, 

205. 
Versions,  raoflern,  8,  9,  185,  186. 
Victor  Vitensis,  1.3,  107,  187. 
Vigiliiis   Tapsensis,  52,  89,  95,   100, 

132,  187,  189,  205. 
Vincent,  William,  31  n. 
Vulgate  version.     See  Latin  Vulgate. 

Wagner,  J.  E.,  74,  75. 
Walafrid  Strabo.     See  Strabo. 
Waldenses,  109-111. 
Wallis,  John,  158,  159. 
Wardlaw,  Ralph,  199. 
Ware,  Heurv,  Jr.,  184. 
Waterland,  Daniel,  22, 158,  159. 


Westcott,  B.  F.,  205  n. 

Wetstein,  J. .!.,  38  -  41, 130;  143, 191. 

Wette,  W.  M.  L.  de,  198. 

Whiston,  William,  21,  29,  30,  74. 

Whitbv,  Daniel,  147. 

Wilson,  John,  193,  194. 

Wiseman,   Cardinal  Nicholas,  186- 

191. 
Wolfenbiittel  MS.    See  Codex  Guelph- 

erbytanus. 
Woolsev,  Theodore,  Pjys.  oJ"  Yale 

College,  qnoted,  206,  207. 
Wordsworth,  Christopher,   197,  and 

note. 
Wright,  William,  quoted,  189,  190, 

191,  192. 

ZuNiGA,  D.  L.     See  Stunica. 
Zwiugli,  Huldreich  or  Ulrich,  185. 


THE  END. 


Cambridge  :  Stereotyped  and  Printed  by  Welch,  Bigelow,  &  Co. 


DATE  DUE 

.^  A.o^'iirtii—  1  1  -^ 

■— "^^ 

"TiggT" 

K' 

"•"- 

CAVLORO 

rniNTCOIN  U.S.A. 

tib^mbA  .073 

Memoir  of  the  controversy  respecting  the 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00067  3121 


